三种口腔内扫描仪记录全弓种植体支持义齿印模的准确性:一项体外研究。

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 Medicine
Saurabh Jain, Mohammed E Sayed, Reem Abdullah A Khawaji, Ghada Ali J Hakami, Eman Hassan M Solan, Manal A Daish, Hossam F Jokhadar, Saad Saleh AlResayes, Majed S Altoman, Abdullah Hasan Alshehri, Saeed M Alqahtani, Mohammad Alamri, Ahid Amer Alshahrani, Hind Ziyad Al-Najjar, Khurshid Mattoo
{"title":"三种口腔内扫描仪记录全弓种植体支持义齿印模的准确性:一项体外研究。","authors":"Saurabh Jain, Mohammed E Sayed, Reem Abdullah A Khawaji, Ghada Ali J Hakami, Eman Hassan M Solan, Manal A Daish, Hossam F Jokhadar, Saad Saleh AlResayes, Majed S Altoman, Abdullah Hasan Alshehri, Saeed M Alqahtani, Mohammad Alamri, Ahid Amer Alshahrani, Hind Ziyad Al-Najjar, Khurshid Mattoo","doi":"10.12659/MSM.946624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BACKGROUND This study used an edentulous mandibular resin model with 6 parallel osteotomy sites and aimed to compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of 10 digital impressions using 3 intraoral scanners, the 3Shape TRIOS 5, Medit i700, and Primescan, using Medit Link v3.3.2 software. MATERIAL AND METHODS A model simulating a patient's lower jaw was surgically prepared at 6 parallel sites (implant osteotomy), allowing placement of 6 implant analogues. Matrix-Direct transfer abutments were attached to the analogs, and a reference scan was obtained using a CeramilMap 600 extraoral scanner. Three intraoral scanners (3Shape TRIOS 5, Medit i700, and Primescan) made 10 digital impressions of each model. The data obtained were superimposed and compared using software (Medit Link 3.3.2) to evaluate accuracy. Mean values were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test. Differences were considered significant at a P value of less than 0.05. RESULTS The TRIOS 5 intraoral scanner displayed the lowest deviation for precision (37.8±4.53 μm) and trueness (54.9±11 μm), followed by Medit i700 (precision 40.6±4.17 μm, trueness 60.5±10.9 μm), whereas the highest deviation (precision: 49.1±8.31 μm, trueness: 72.3±10.4 μm) was reported when Primescan intraoral scanner was used for recording impressions of full arch implants. When the 3 intraoral scanners were compared, a statistically significant difference was observed in terms of precision (P<0.005) and trueness (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS TRIOS 5 intraoral scanner displayed the lowest deviation values for precision and trueness (more accurate), followed by Medit i700 and Primescan intraoral scanners. However, deviation values of all scanners were within clinically acceptable limits.</p>","PeriodicalId":48888,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Monitor","volume":"30 ","pages":"e946624"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11636004/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of 3 Intraoral Scanners in Recording Impressions for Full Arch Dental Implant-Supported Prosthesis: An In Vitro Study.\",\"authors\":\"Saurabh Jain, Mohammed E Sayed, Reem Abdullah A Khawaji, Ghada Ali J Hakami, Eman Hassan M Solan, Manal A Daish, Hossam F Jokhadar, Saad Saleh AlResayes, Majed S Altoman, Abdullah Hasan Alshehri, Saeed M Alqahtani, Mohammad Alamri, Ahid Amer Alshahrani, Hind Ziyad Al-Najjar, Khurshid Mattoo\",\"doi\":\"10.12659/MSM.946624\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>BACKGROUND This study used an edentulous mandibular resin model with 6 parallel osteotomy sites and aimed to compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of 10 digital impressions using 3 intraoral scanners, the 3Shape TRIOS 5, Medit i700, and Primescan, using Medit Link v3.3.2 software. MATERIAL AND METHODS A model simulating a patient's lower jaw was surgically prepared at 6 parallel sites (implant osteotomy), allowing placement of 6 implant analogues. Matrix-Direct transfer abutments were attached to the analogs, and a reference scan was obtained using a CeramilMap 600 extraoral scanner. Three intraoral scanners (3Shape TRIOS 5, Medit i700, and Primescan) made 10 digital impressions of each model. The data obtained were superimposed and compared using software (Medit Link 3.3.2) to evaluate accuracy. Mean values were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test. Differences were considered significant at a P value of less than 0.05. RESULTS The TRIOS 5 intraoral scanner displayed the lowest deviation for precision (37.8±4.53 μm) and trueness (54.9±11 μm), followed by Medit i700 (precision 40.6±4.17 μm, trueness 60.5±10.9 μm), whereas the highest deviation (precision: 49.1±8.31 μm, trueness: 72.3±10.4 μm) was reported when Primescan intraoral scanner was used for recording impressions of full arch implants. When the 3 intraoral scanners were compared, a statistically significant difference was observed in terms of precision (P<0.005) and trueness (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS TRIOS 5 intraoral scanner displayed the lowest deviation values for precision and trueness (more accurate), followed by Medit i700 and Primescan intraoral scanners. However, deviation values of all scanners were within clinically acceptable limits.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Science Monitor\",\"volume\":\"30 \",\"pages\":\"e946624\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11636004/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Science Monitor\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.946624\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Science Monitor","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.946624","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究使用具有6个平行截骨点的无牙下颌树脂模型,目的是比较3种口腔内扫描仪,3Shape TRIOS 5, Medit i700和Primescan,使用Medit Link v3.3.2软件进行10个数字印模的准确性(真实度和精密度)。材料和方法:在6个平行位置(种植体截骨)制备模拟患者下颌的模型,允许放置6个种植体类似物。将基质-直接转移基台连接到类似物上,并使用CeramilMap 600口外扫描仪获得参考扫描。三个口内扫描仪(3Shape TRIOS 5, Medit i700和Primescan)对每个模型进行10次数字印模。采用Medit Link 3.3.2软件对所得数据进行叠加比较,评价准确性。平均值采用单因素方差分析和事后Tukey检验进行统计学分析。当P值小于0.05时,认为差异显著。结果TRIOS 5型口腔内扫描仪的精度偏差最小(37.8±4.53 μm),真实度偏差最小(54.9±11 μm),其次是Medit i700(精度40.6±4.17 μm,真实度60.5±10.9 μm), Primescan型口腔内扫描仪记录全弓种植体印模时的误差最大(精度49.1±8.31 μm,真实度72.3±10.4 μm)。比较3种口腔内扫描仪,在精度方面有统计学意义(P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy of 3 Intraoral Scanners in Recording Impressions for Full Arch Dental Implant-Supported Prosthesis: An In Vitro Study.

BACKGROUND This study used an edentulous mandibular resin model with 6 parallel osteotomy sites and aimed to compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of 10 digital impressions using 3 intraoral scanners, the 3Shape TRIOS 5, Medit i700, and Primescan, using Medit Link v3.3.2 software. MATERIAL AND METHODS A model simulating a patient's lower jaw was surgically prepared at 6 parallel sites (implant osteotomy), allowing placement of 6 implant analogues. Matrix-Direct transfer abutments were attached to the analogs, and a reference scan was obtained using a CeramilMap 600 extraoral scanner. Three intraoral scanners (3Shape TRIOS 5, Medit i700, and Primescan) made 10 digital impressions of each model. The data obtained were superimposed and compared using software (Medit Link 3.3.2) to evaluate accuracy. Mean values were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test. Differences were considered significant at a P value of less than 0.05. RESULTS The TRIOS 5 intraoral scanner displayed the lowest deviation for precision (37.8±4.53 μm) and trueness (54.9±11 μm), followed by Medit i700 (precision 40.6±4.17 μm, trueness 60.5±10.9 μm), whereas the highest deviation (precision: 49.1±8.31 μm, trueness: 72.3±10.4 μm) was reported when Primescan intraoral scanner was used for recording impressions of full arch implants. When the 3 intraoral scanners were compared, a statistically significant difference was observed in terms of precision (P<0.005) and trueness (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS TRIOS 5 intraoral scanner displayed the lowest deviation values for precision and trueness (more accurate), followed by Medit i700 and Primescan intraoral scanners. However, deviation values of all scanners were within clinically acceptable limits.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Science Monitor
Medical Science Monitor MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
3.20%
发文量
514
审稿时长
3.0 months
期刊介绍: Medical Science Monitor (MSM) established in 1995 is an international, peer-reviewed scientific journal which publishes original articles in Clinical Medicine and related disciplines such as Epidemiology and Population Studies, Product Investigations, Development of Laboratory Techniques :: Diagnostics and Medical Technology which enable presentation of research or review works in overlapping areas of medicine and technology such us (but not limited to): medical diagnostics, medical imaging systems, computer simulation of health and disease processes, new medical devices, etc. Reviews and Special Reports - papers may be accepted on the basis that they provide a systematic, critical and up-to-date overview of literature pertaining to research or clinical topics. Meta-analyses are considered as reviews. A special attention will be paid to a teaching value of a review paper. Medical Science Monitor is internationally indexed in Thomson-Reuters Web of Science, Journals Citation Report (JCR), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI), Index Medicus MEDLINE, PubMed, PMC, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Chemical Abstracts CAS and Index Copernicus.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信