Jie Ma, Binghua Zhang, Hao Song, Shuang Xu, Tiantian Chen, Tao Song
{"title":"口腔内扫描与模拟印模在长无牙段多种植体支持修复中的准确性:一项比较临床研究。","authors":"Jie Ma, Binghua Zhang, Hao Song, Shuang Xu, Tiantian Chen, Tao Song","doi":"10.11607/ijp.9180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Clinical scientific evidence of the accuracy of intraoral scanning (IOS) impressions for multiple implant-supported prostheses in partially edentulous arches is limited. This in vivo study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of IOS impressions for multiple implants by comparing them with analog impressions.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients with three adjacent implants in partially edentulous arches were recruited. For each arch, IOS impressions were obtained. Using the analog splinted impression technique, casts were obtained and scanned with an extraoral scanner. Using metrology software, the distances and angles between the implants were measured in all IOS and analog impression Standard Tessellation Language files. The absolute values of the distance and angular deviation were calculated and analyzed by comparing the two impression methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-four patients with partially edentulous arches were enrolled. The distance deviation between the IOS and analog impressions was 85.09 ± 58.73 µm, which was significantly lower than the clinically acceptable error (150 µm; P < .001). The angular deviation was 0.515 ± 0.426°. Distance deviations were significantly correlated with the interimplant distances (r = 0.384, P = .001) and angulations (r = 0.278, P =.022).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For multiple implant-supported prostheses in partially edentulous arches, the distance deviation between the IOS and analog impression was within the clinicall acceptable range of misfit and increased with increasing interimplant distance and angulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Intraoral Scanning Versus Analog Impression for Multiple Implant-supported Prostheses in Long Edentulous Spans: A Comparative Clinical Study.\",\"authors\":\"Jie Ma, Binghua Zhang, Hao Song, Shuang Xu, Tiantian Chen, Tao Song\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/ijp.9180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Clinical scientific evidence of the accuracy of intraoral scanning (IOS) impressions for multiple implant-supported prostheses in partially edentulous arches is limited. This in vivo study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of IOS impressions for multiple implants by comparing them with analog impressions.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients with three adjacent implants in partially edentulous arches were recruited. For each arch, IOS impressions were obtained. Using the analog splinted impression technique, casts were obtained and scanned with an extraoral scanner. Using metrology software, the distances and angles between the implants were measured in all IOS and analog impression Standard Tessellation Language files. The absolute values of the distance and angular deviation were calculated and analyzed by comparing the two impression methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-four patients with partially edentulous arches were enrolled. The distance deviation between the IOS and analog impressions was 85.09 ± 58.73 µm, which was significantly lower than the clinically acceptable error (150 µm; P < .001). The angular deviation was 0.515 ± 0.426°. Distance deviations were significantly correlated with the interimplant distances (r = 0.384, P = .001) and angulations (r = 0.278, P =.022).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For multiple implant-supported prostheses in partially edentulous arches, the distance deviation between the IOS and analog impression was within the clinicall acceptable range of misfit and increased with increasing interimplant distance and angulation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International journal of prosthodontics\",\"volume\":\"0 0\",\"pages\":\"1-17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-06\",\"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.9180\",\"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.9180","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:临床科学证据表明,在部分无牙弓多种植体支持的口腔内扫描(IOS)印模的准确性是有限的。本体内研究旨在通过与模拟印模的比较,评估多个植入物的IOS印模的准确性。材料和方法:选取部分无牙弓相邻种植3个种植体的患者。对于每个arch,我们都会获得IOS印象。使用模拟夹板印模技术,获得铸型并用口外扫描仪扫描。使用计量软件,在所有的IOS和模拟印象标准镶嵌语言文件中测量种植体之间的距离和角度。通过对两种压印方法的比较,计算并分析了距离和角偏差的绝对值。结果:入选34例部分无牙弓患者。IOS与模拟印模之间的距离偏差为85.09±58.73µm,显著低于临床可接受误差(150µm;P < 0.001)。角度偏差为0.515±0.426°。距离偏差与种植间距离(r = 0.384, P = 0.001)和种植角度(r = 0.278, P = 0.022)显著相关。结论:对于部分无牙弓的多种植体支持修复体,植入物与模拟印模之间的距离偏差在临床可接受的不匹配范围内,并且随着种植间距离和角度的增加而增加。
Accuracy of Intraoral Scanning Versus Analog Impression for Multiple Implant-supported Prostheses in Long Edentulous Spans: A Comparative Clinical Study.
Purpose: Clinical scientific evidence of the accuracy of intraoral scanning (IOS) impressions for multiple implant-supported prostheses in partially edentulous arches is limited. This in vivo study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of IOS impressions for multiple implants by comparing them with analog impressions.
Materials and methods: Patients with three adjacent implants in partially edentulous arches were recruited. For each arch, IOS impressions were obtained. Using the analog splinted impression technique, casts were obtained and scanned with an extraoral scanner. Using metrology software, the distances and angles between the implants were measured in all IOS and analog impression Standard Tessellation Language files. The absolute values of the distance and angular deviation were calculated and analyzed by comparing the two impression methods.
Results: Thirty-four patients with partially edentulous arches were enrolled. The distance deviation between the IOS and analog impressions was 85.09 ± 58.73 µm, which was significantly lower than the clinically acceptable error (150 µm; P < .001). The angular deviation was 0.515 ± 0.426°. Distance deviations were significantly correlated with the interimplant distances (r = 0.384, P = .001) and angulations (r = 0.278, P =.022).
Conclusions: For multiple implant-supported prostheses in partially edentulous arches, the distance deviation between the IOS and analog impression was within the clinicall acceptable range of misfit and increased with increasing interimplant distance and angulation.