Carmen Saadeh, Hani Tohme, Ghida Lawand, Nicolas Khoury, Carole Yared
{"title":"使用颊牵引器对完全无牙颌患者的满意度和上颌数字扫描中周边边界真实性的影响:活体研究","authors":"Carmen Saadeh, Hani Tohme, Ghida Lawand, Nicolas Khoury, Carole Yared","doi":"10.11607/ijp.8895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the effect of cheek retractors on the accuracy of capturing peripheral borders in totally edentulous digital scans by comparing the conventional impression technique to digital scans made using two different cheek retractors.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Sixteen edentulous maxillary impressions were made using three techniques: the conventional impression technique, using modeling thermoplastic compound and zinc oxide eugenol paste; the digital intraoral scanning technique using the DIO scan retractor (DIO); and using the Br.nemark lip retractor (BRAN). The control impressions of each patient were poured, scanned using a desktop scanner, then transferred into a three-dimensional analysis software. DIO and BRAN groups were scanned using an intraoral scanner, imported, and superimposed using best fit algorithm on the corresponding control. The root mean square for the whole surface and for particular interest regions were calculated to assess the degree of trueness. The patients' perceptions of the impression techniques were the secondary outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the one sample T-test and Wilcoxon test (α=.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant discrepancies were found for BRAN and DIO compared to the control. No significant discrepancies were found when comparing RMS of BRAN and DIO at different regions. Scan retractors had a significant impact on patient satisfaction, with patients preferring DIO.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Edentulous intraoral scans made using cheek retractors had similar deviations when compared to each other but diverged from the conventional impression in edentulous maxilla. Patient preferences for intraoral scans over conventional impressions were confirmed.</p><p><strong>Clinical implications: </strong>The use of different retracting methods during intraoral scanning of totally edentulous maxillary arches does not affect the peripheral border registration.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of Utilizing Cheek Retractors on Patient Satisfaction and Trueness of Peripheral Borders in Maxillary Digital Scans for Totally Edentulous Patients: An In Vivo Study.\",\"authors\":\"Carmen Saadeh, Hani Tohme, Ghida Lawand, Nicolas Khoury, Carole Yared\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/ijp.8895\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the effect of cheek retractors on the accuracy of capturing peripheral borders in totally edentulous digital scans by comparing the conventional impression technique to digital scans made using two different cheek retractors.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Sixteen edentulous maxillary impressions were made using three techniques: the conventional impression technique, using modeling thermoplastic compound and zinc oxide eugenol paste; the digital intraoral scanning technique using the DIO scan retractor (DIO); and using the Br.nemark lip retractor (BRAN). The control impressions of each patient were poured, scanned using a desktop scanner, then transferred into a three-dimensional analysis software. DIO and BRAN groups were scanned using an intraoral scanner, imported, and superimposed using best fit algorithm on the corresponding control. The root mean square for the whole surface and for particular interest regions were calculated to assess the degree of trueness. The patients' perceptions of the impression techniques were the secondary outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the one sample T-test and Wilcoxon test (α=.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant discrepancies were found for BRAN and DIO compared to the control. No significant discrepancies were found when comparing RMS of BRAN and DIO at different regions. Scan retractors had a significant impact on patient satisfaction, with patients preferring DIO.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Edentulous intraoral scans made using cheek retractors had similar deviations when compared to each other but diverged from the conventional impression in edentulous maxilla. Patient preferences for intraoral scans over conventional impressions were confirmed.</p><p><strong>Clinical implications: </strong>The use of different retracting methods during intraoral scanning of totally edentulous maxillary arches does not affect the peripheral border registration.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International journal of prosthodontics\",\"volume\":\"0 0\",\"pages\":\"1-23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International journal of prosthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8895\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8895","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:通过比较传统印模技术和使用两种不同颊面牵引器进行的数字化扫描,评估颊面牵引器对全口无牙颌数字化扫描中捕捉周边边界准确性的影响:使用三种技术制作了 16 个无牙颌上颌印模:传统印模技术,使用建模热塑性化合物和氧化锌丁香酚糊剂;口内数字化扫描技术,使用 DIO 扫描牵引器 (DIO);以及使用 Br.nemark 唇部牵引器 (BRAN)。每个患者的对照印模都是用台式扫描仪浇注和扫描的,然后传输到三维分析软件中。使用口内扫描仪对 DIO 和 BRAN 组进行扫描,然后导入,并使用最佳拟合算法在相应的对照组上进行叠加。计算整个表面和特定兴趣区域的均方根,以评估真实度。患者对印模技术的看法是次要结果。统计分析采用单样本 T 检验和 Wilcoxon 检验(α=.05):与对照组相比,BRAN 和 DIO 存在显著差异。比较不同区域 BRAN 和 DIO 的 RMS,未发现明显差异。扫描牵引器对患者满意度有显著影响,患者更喜欢 DIO:使用颊面牵引器进行无牙颌口内扫描时,两者之间的偏差相似,但在无牙颌上颌与传统印模的偏差较大。临床意义:临床意义:对完全无牙颌的上颌牙弓进行口内扫描时,使用不同的牵引方法不会影响周边边界的印模。
Effect of Utilizing Cheek Retractors on Patient Satisfaction and Trueness of Peripheral Borders in Maxillary Digital Scans for Totally Edentulous Patients: An In Vivo Study.
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of cheek retractors on the accuracy of capturing peripheral borders in totally edentulous digital scans by comparing the conventional impression technique to digital scans made using two different cheek retractors.
Material and methods: Sixteen edentulous maxillary impressions were made using three techniques: the conventional impression technique, using modeling thermoplastic compound and zinc oxide eugenol paste; the digital intraoral scanning technique using the DIO scan retractor (DIO); and using the Br.nemark lip retractor (BRAN). The control impressions of each patient were poured, scanned using a desktop scanner, then transferred into a three-dimensional analysis software. DIO and BRAN groups were scanned using an intraoral scanner, imported, and superimposed using best fit algorithm on the corresponding control. The root mean square for the whole surface and for particular interest regions were calculated to assess the degree of trueness. The patients' perceptions of the impression techniques were the secondary outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the one sample T-test and Wilcoxon test (α=.05).
Results: Significant discrepancies were found for BRAN and DIO compared to the control. No significant discrepancies were found when comparing RMS of BRAN and DIO at different regions. Scan retractors had a significant impact on patient satisfaction, with patients preferring DIO.
Conclusions: Edentulous intraoral scans made using cheek retractors had similar deviations when compared to each other but diverged from the conventional impression in edentulous maxilla. Patient preferences for intraoral scans over conventional impressions were confirmed.
Clinical implications: The use of different retracting methods during intraoral scanning of totally edentulous maxillary arches does not affect the peripheral border registration.