Ahmed Khalaf Ahmed Mubarak, Mohammed Moustafa Shalaby, Ahmed Mohammed Bakry
{"title":"使用不同口内扫描流模式的成像准确性评估:一项体外研究。","authors":"Ahmed Khalaf Ahmed Mubarak, Mohammed Moustafa Shalaby, Ahmed Mohammed Bakry","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3863","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This <i>in vitro</i> study evaluated the accuracy of two intraoral scanners with different streaming modes (CEREC Omnicam, Dentsply-Sirona, USA; video mode) and (Shining 3D, Aoralscan, China; image mode).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Three sets of acrylic maxillary typodont were uniformly reduced with known axial wall taper of 10°, 15° and 20°, respectively, using a computer numerical control (CNC) milling machine. Then, abutments were randomly divided into 3 groups: (1) Single abutments; (2) successive abutments; (3) and simple bridge-like abutments. Such abutments were scanned with three scanners: (1) Desktop scanner (InEos X5) that serve as a reference; (2) experimental intraoral scanners (CEREC Omnicam and Shining 3D). The analysis of these scans has been carried out using Geomagic Control X software to assess both IOSs trueness and precision. Each experimental model (CEREC Omnicam and Shining 3D) was scanned three times for precision determination. Descriptive analysis has been carried out by one-way ANOVA and independent <i>t</i>-test to ascertain any significant difference between the two comparing scanners.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Regarding trueness, CEREC Omnicam has significantly better trueness (0.0554 ± 0.0111 mm) than Shining 3D IOS (0.0737 ± 0.0380 mm). Meanwhile, the variance in axial wall taper demonstrated little significant variation in all groups (single, successive, and bridge-like). The significant difference is associated with shallow axial wall taper (10° taper). On the contrary, both 15° and 20° axial wall taper/total occlusal convergence (TOC) revealed no significant difference. However, no significance was revealed in regard to precision.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the limitations of this study, the accuracy of the tested video and image streaming mode scanners is within the clinically acceptable range regarding different prosthetic scenarios, as well as different preparation convergences.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>This study provides valuable insights into intraoral scanners' accuracy regarding their different streaming modes, various prosthetic scenarios, and total occlusal convergence (TOC) as well. How to cite this article: Mubarak AKA, Shalaby MM, Bakry AM. Assessment of Imaging Accuracy Using Different Intraoral Scanner Streaming Modes: An <i>In Vitro</i> Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2025;26(4):397-402.</p>","PeriodicalId":35792,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","volume":"26 4","pages":"397-402"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of Imaging Accuracy Using Different Intraoral Scanner Streaming Modes: An <i>In Vitro</i> Study.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmed Khalaf Ahmed Mubarak, Mohammed Moustafa Shalaby, Ahmed Mohammed Bakry\",\"doi\":\"10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3863\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This <i>in vitro</i> study evaluated the accuracy of two intraoral scanners with different streaming modes (CEREC Omnicam, Dentsply-Sirona, USA; video mode) and (Shining 3D, Aoralscan, China; image mode).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Three sets of acrylic maxillary typodont were uniformly reduced with known axial wall taper of 10°, 15° and 20°, respectively, using a computer numerical control (CNC) milling machine. Then, abutments were randomly divided into 3 groups: (1) Single abutments; (2) successive abutments; (3) and simple bridge-like abutments. Such abutments were scanned with three scanners: (1) Desktop scanner (InEos X5) that serve as a reference; (2) experimental intraoral scanners (CEREC Omnicam and Shining 3D). The analysis of these scans has been carried out using Geomagic Control X software to assess both IOSs trueness and precision. Each experimental model (CEREC Omnicam and Shining 3D) was scanned three times for precision determination. Descriptive analysis has been carried out by one-way ANOVA and independent <i>t</i>-test to ascertain any significant difference between the two comparing scanners.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Regarding trueness, CEREC Omnicam has significantly better trueness (0.0554 ± 0.0111 mm) than Shining 3D IOS (0.0737 ± 0.0380 mm). Meanwhile, the variance in axial wall taper demonstrated little significant variation in all groups (single, successive, and bridge-like). The significant difference is associated with shallow axial wall taper (10° taper). On the contrary, both 15° and 20° axial wall taper/total occlusal convergence (TOC) revealed no significant difference. However, no significance was revealed in regard to precision.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the limitations of this study, the accuracy of the tested video and image streaming mode scanners is within the clinically acceptable range regarding different prosthetic scenarios, as well as different preparation convergences.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>This study provides valuable insights into intraoral scanners' accuracy regarding their different streaming modes, various prosthetic scenarios, and total occlusal convergence (TOC) as well. How to cite this article: Mubarak AKA, Shalaby MM, Bakry AM. Assessment of Imaging Accuracy Using Different Intraoral Scanner Streaming Modes: An <i>In Vitro</i> Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2025;26(4):397-402.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35792,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice\",\"volume\":\"26 4\",\"pages\":\"397-402\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3863\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3863","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本体外研究评估了两种不同流模式的口内扫描仪的准确性(CEREC Omnicam, Dentsply-Sirona, USA;视频模式)和(Shining 3D, Aoralscan,中国;图像模式)。材料和方法:采用计算机数控铣床,将三组丙烯酸上颌型牙分别以已知的轴向壁锥度10°、15°和20°进行均匀的裁减。然后将基台随机分为3组:(1)单基台;(2)连续的桥台;(3)和简单的桥状桥台。这些基台使用三种扫描仪进行扫描:(1)桌面扫描仪(InEos X5)作为参考;(2)实验性口腔内扫描仪(CEREC Omnicam和Shining 3D)。使用Geomagic Control X软件对这些扫描进行分析,以评估iss的真实性和精度。每个实验模型(CEREC Omnicam和Shining 3D)扫描三次以确定精度。描述性分析通过单因素方差分析和独立t检验进行,以确定两个比较扫描仪之间的任何显著差异。结果:在准确性方面,CEREC Omnicam的准确性(0.0554±0.0111 mm)明显优于Shining 3D IOS(0.0737±0.0380 mm)。同时,轴壁锥度的变化在所有组(单组、连续组和桥状组)中变化不大。显著差异与浅轴壁锥度(10°锥度)有关。相反,15°和20°轴壁锥度/全咬合收敛(TOC)无显著差异。然而,在精度方面没有发现任何意义。结论:在本研究的限制范围内,所测试的视频和图像流模式扫描仪在不同的假体场景下以及不同的制备收敛度下的准确性都在临床可接受的范围内。临床意义:本研究为口腔内扫描仪在不同流模式、不同假体场景和全咬合收敛(TOC)方面的准确性提供了有价值的见解。如何引用本文:穆巴拉克AKA, Shalaby MM, Bakry AM。使用不同口内扫描流模式的成像准确性评估:一项体外研究。[J]现代医学学报;2009;26(4):397-402。
Assessment of Imaging Accuracy Using Different Intraoral Scanner Streaming Modes: An In Vitro Study.
Aim: This in vitro study evaluated the accuracy of two intraoral scanners with different streaming modes (CEREC Omnicam, Dentsply-Sirona, USA; video mode) and (Shining 3D, Aoralscan, China; image mode).
Materials and methods: Three sets of acrylic maxillary typodont were uniformly reduced with known axial wall taper of 10°, 15° and 20°, respectively, using a computer numerical control (CNC) milling machine. Then, abutments were randomly divided into 3 groups: (1) Single abutments; (2) successive abutments; (3) and simple bridge-like abutments. Such abutments were scanned with three scanners: (1) Desktop scanner (InEos X5) that serve as a reference; (2) experimental intraoral scanners (CEREC Omnicam and Shining 3D). The analysis of these scans has been carried out using Geomagic Control X software to assess both IOSs trueness and precision. Each experimental model (CEREC Omnicam and Shining 3D) was scanned three times for precision determination. Descriptive analysis has been carried out by one-way ANOVA and independent t-test to ascertain any significant difference between the two comparing scanners.
Results: Regarding trueness, CEREC Omnicam has significantly better trueness (0.0554 ± 0.0111 mm) than Shining 3D IOS (0.0737 ± 0.0380 mm). Meanwhile, the variance in axial wall taper demonstrated little significant variation in all groups (single, successive, and bridge-like). The significant difference is associated with shallow axial wall taper (10° taper). On the contrary, both 15° and 20° axial wall taper/total occlusal convergence (TOC) revealed no significant difference. However, no significance was revealed in regard to precision.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the accuracy of the tested video and image streaming mode scanners is within the clinically acceptable range regarding different prosthetic scenarios, as well as different preparation convergences.
Clinical significance: This study provides valuable insights into intraoral scanners' accuracy regarding their different streaming modes, various prosthetic scenarios, and total occlusal convergence (TOC) as well. How to cite this article: Mubarak AKA, Shalaby MM, Bakry AM. Assessment of Imaging Accuracy Using Different Intraoral Scanner Streaming Modes: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2025;26(4):397-402.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice (JCDP), is a peer-reviewed, open access MEDLINE indexed journal. The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.thejcdp.com. The journal allows free access (open access) to its contents. Articles with clinical relevance will be given preference for publication. The Journal publishes original research papers, review articles, rare and novel case reports, and clinical techniques. Manuscripts are invited from all specialties of dentistry i.e., conservative dentistry and endodontics, dentofacial orthopedics and orthodontics, oral medicine and radiology, oral pathology, oral surgery, orodental diseases, pediatric dentistry, implantology, periodontics, clinical aspects of public health dentistry, and prosthodontics.