Merve Şeker, Elif Alkan, Dilek Tağtekin, Bora Korkut, Funda Yanıkoğlu
{"title":"两种不同的口腔内扫描仪在龋齿清除中测定与龋齿相关体积损失的比较","authors":"Merve Şeker, Elif Alkan, Dilek Tağtekin, Bora Korkut, Funda Yanıkoğlu","doi":"10.14693/jdi.v30i2.1430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The study aimed to compare cavity volume data obtained with two different intraoral scanners. Methods: One hundred extracted molar teeth were divided into groups according to ICDAS-II classification, and scanned with Cerec Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona) and iTero Element Flex (Align Technology). The caries-infected tissues were removed regarding either minimally invasive or conventional cavity principles. Samples were scanned again and volumetric data were assessed by Meshmixer 3.5 (Autodesk) 3D modeling software. Statistical evaluations were performed with Mann Whitney U test and Spearman’s Correlation test. The significance level was α=0.05. Results: Although there was a significant difference between obtained initial volume readings of two scanners for 3M and 3C groups (p < 0.05), no significant difference was observed among other groups (p ≥ 0.05). Regarding the comparison of final volume readings of two scanners, a significant difference was found for 5M group (p = 0.036), whereas no significant difference was observed for other groups (p ≥ 0.05). Percentage of volume loss between two scanners was statistically similar (p ≥ 0.05). Conclusion: Data obtained with Cerec Omnicam and iTero Element Flex were compatible with volumetric assessments. Both intraoral scanners may be considered effective for calculating caries-related cavity volumes. Minimally invasive cavity principles may provide less volume loss compared to conventional cavity principles.","PeriodicalId":53873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dentistry Indonesia","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Two Different Intraoral Scanners for Determination of Caries Related Volume Loss in Caries Removal\",\"authors\":\"Merve Şeker, Elif Alkan, Dilek Tağtekin, Bora Korkut, Funda Yanıkoğlu\",\"doi\":\"10.14693/jdi.v30i2.1430\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: The study aimed to compare cavity volume data obtained with two different intraoral scanners. Methods: One hundred extracted molar teeth were divided into groups according to ICDAS-II classification, and scanned with Cerec Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona) and iTero Element Flex (Align Technology). The caries-infected tissues were removed regarding either minimally invasive or conventional cavity principles. Samples were scanned again and volumetric data were assessed by Meshmixer 3.5 (Autodesk) 3D modeling software. Statistical evaluations were performed with Mann Whitney U test and Spearman’s Correlation test. The significance level was α=0.05. Results: Although there was a significant difference between obtained initial volume readings of two scanners for 3M and 3C groups (p < 0.05), no significant difference was observed among other groups (p ≥ 0.05). Regarding the comparison of final volume readings of two scanners, a significant difference was found for 5M group (p = 0.036), whereas no significant difference was observed for other groups (p ≥ 0.05). Percentage of volume loss between two scanners was statistically similar (p ≥ 0.05). Conclusion: Data obtained with Cerec Omnicam and iTero Element Flex were compatible with volumetric assessments. Both intraoral scanners may be considered effective for calculating caries-related cavity volumes. Minimally invasive cavity principles may provide less volume loss compared to conventional cavity principles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53873,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Dentistry Indonesia\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Dentistry Indonesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14693/jdi.v30i2.1430\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dentistry Indonesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14693/jdi.v30i2.1430","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:比较两种不同的口腔内扫描仪所获得的口腔体积数据。方法:100颗拔除的磨牙按照icdasi分类进行分组,分别用Cerec Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona)和iTero Element Flex (Align Technology)进行扫描。采用微创或常规的方法切除受龋感染的组织。再次扫描样品,并使用Meshmixer 3.5 (Autodesk) 3D建模软件评估体积数据。统计学评价采用Mann Whitney U检验和Spearman相关检验。显著性水平为α=0.05。结果:虽然两种扫描仪在3M组和3C组获得的初始体积读数之间存在显著差异(p <0.05),其他组间差异无统计学意义(p≥0.05)。两台扫描仪的最终体积读数比较,5M组差异有统计学意义(p = 0.036),其他组差异无统计学意义(p≥0.05)。两种扫描仪的体积损失百分比在统计学上相似(p≥0.05)。结论:Cerec Omnicam和iTero Element Flex获得的数据与容量评估一致。这两种口腔内扫描仪都可以被认为是有效的计算龋齿相关的腔体积。与传统的腔原理相比,微创腔原理可以提供更少的体积损失。
Comparison of Two Different Intraoral Scanners for Determination of Caries Related Volume Loss in Caries Removal
Objective: The study aimed to compare cavity volume data obtained with two different intraoral scanners. Methods: One hundred extracted molar teeth were divided into groups according to ICDAS-II classification, and scanned with Cerec Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona) and iTero Element Flex (Align Technology). The caries-infected tissues were removed regarding either minimally invasive or conventional cavity principles. Samples were scanned again and volumetric data were assessed by Meshmixer 3.5 (Autodesk) 3D modeling software. Statistical evaluations were performed with Mann Whitney U test and Spearman’s Correlation test. The significance level was α=0.05. Results: Although there was a significant difference between obtained initial volume readings of two scanners for 3M and 3C groups (p < 0.05), no significant difference was observed among other groups (p ≥ 0.05). Regarding the comparison of final volume readings of two scanners, a significant difference was found for 5M group (p = 0.036), whereas no significant difference was observed for other groups (p ≥ 0.05). Percentage of volume loss between two scanners was statistically similar (p ≥ 0.05). Conclusion: Data obtained with Cerec Omnicam and iTero Element Flex were compatible with volumetric assessments. Both intraoral scanners may be considered effective for calculating caries-related cavity volumes. Minimally invasive cavity principles may provide less volume loss compared to conventional cavity principles.