Elabbas Elhussain, Oscar Figueras-Álvarez, Miguel Roig-Cayon, Jordi Ortega-Martínez, Carla Vidal-Ponsoda
{"title":"牙齿拥挤对口腔内扫描仪的准确性和准确性的影响:不同设备和技术的比较。","authors":"Elabbas Elhussain, Oscar Figueras-Álvarez, Miguel Roig-Cayon, Jordi Ortega-Martínez, Carla Vidal-Ponsoda","doi":"10.1016/j.ajodo.2025.08.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study evaluated the impact of dental crowding on the trueness and precision of 6 intraoral scanners (Primescan [Dentsply Sirona], Medit i700 [Medit, Seoul, South Korea], Trios 3 [3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark], iTero Element 5D [Align Technology, San Jose, Calif], Shining 3D [Shining 3D Technology, Hangzhou, China], and Helios 600 [Changzhou Sifary Medical Technology Co Ltd, Changzhou, China]) and extraoral scans of conventional silicone impressions using 3-dimensional-printed mandibular models with different crowding levels.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Mandibular models with no, slight, and severe crowding were scanned 5 times with each intraoral scanner and silicone impression. Trueness was assessed by comparing scans to a reference scan using Geomagic Control X, whereas precision was evaluated through intragroup comparisons. Root mean square (RMS) values were analyzed using 2-way analysis of variance and post-hoc least significant difference tests (α = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Crowding significantly affected both trueness (P = 0.001) and precision (P <0.05), with severe crowding leading to higher RMS values. Scanner type also influenced results (P <0.001 for trueness; P <0.05 for precision). Silicone impressions showed lower trueness (RMS = 0.1027 mm) and precision (RMS = 0.0788 mm) than intraoral scanners (P <0.001). Among scanners, iTero Element 5D and Trios 3 exhibited the highest precision, whereas Primescan had significantly lower trueness. A significant interaction between the scanning method and crowding (P <0.05) indicated crowding effects that varied by the scanner.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dental crowding reduces the accuracy of intraoral scanners and silicone impressions, particularly in severe malocclusion. Optimizing scanning strategies and selecting the appropriate scanner is essential for improving outcomes in crowded dentitions.</p>","PeriodicalId":50806,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of dental crowding on the trueness and precision of intraoral scanners: Comparison across different devices and techniques.\",\"authors\":\"Elabbas Elhussain, Oscar Figueras-Álvarez, Miguel Roig-Cayon, Jordi Ortega-Martínez, Carla Vidal-Ponsoda\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajodo.2025.08.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study evaluated the impact of dental crowding on the trueness and precision of 6 intraoral scanners (Primescan [Dentsply Sirona], Medit i700 [Medit, Seoul, South Korea], Trios 3 [3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark], iTero Element 5D [Align Technology, San Jose, Calif], Shining 3D [Shining 3D Technology, Hangzhou, China], and Helios 600 [Changzhou Sifary Medical Technology Co Ltd, Changzhou, China]) and extraoral scans of conventional silicone impressions using 3-dimensional-printed mandibular models with different crowding levels.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Mandibular models with no, slight, and severe crowding were scanned 5 times with each intraoral scanner and silicone impression. Trueness was assessed by comparing scans to a reference scan using Geomagic Control X, whereas precision was evaluated through intragroup comparisons. Root mean square (RMS) values were analyzed using 2-way analysis of variance and post-hoc least significant difference tests (α = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Crowding significantly affected both trueness (P = 0.001) and precision (P <0.05), with severe crowding leading to higher RMS values. Scanner type also influenced results (P <0.001 for trueness; P <0.05 for precision). Silicone impressions showed lower trueness (RMS = 0.1027 mm) and precision (RMS = 0.0788 mm) than intraoral scanners (P <0.001). Among scanners, iTero Element 5D and Trios 3 exhibited the highest precision, whereas Primescan had significantly lower trueness. A significant interaction between the scanning method and crowding (P <0.05) indicated crowding effects that varied by the scanner.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dental crowding reduces the accuracy of intraoral scanners and silicone impressions, particularly in severe malocclusion. Optimizing scanning strategies and selecting the appropriate scanner is essential for improving outcomes in crowded dentitions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50806,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2025.08.004\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2025.08.004","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
作品简介:本研究评估了牙齿拥挤对6种口腔内扫描仪(Primescan [Dentsply Sirona], Medit i700 [Medit,首尔,韩国],Trios 3 [3Shape,哥本哈根,丹麦],iTero Element 5D [Align Technology, San Jose, Calif .], Shining 3D [Shining 3D Technology,中国杭州]和Helios 600 [Changzhou Sifary Medical Technology Co .,常州)的准确性和准确性的影响。[中国])和使用不同拥挤程度的三维打印下颌骨模型对传统硅胶印模进行口外扫描。方法:对无拥挤、轻微拥挤和严重拥挤的下颌模型分别进行5次口腔内扫描和硅胶印模。通过将扫描结果与使用Geomagic Control X的参考扫描结果进行比较来评估准确性,而通过组内比较来评估准确性。均方根(RMS)值采用2-way方差分析和事后最小显著性差异检验(α = 0.05)。结论:牙体拥挤会降低口腔内扫描仪和硅胶印模的准确性,尤其是在严重错颌时。优化扫描策略和选择合适的扫描仪是必不可少的,以改善结果在拥挤的牙齿。
Impact of dental crowding on the trueness and precision of intraoral scanners: Comparison across different devices and techniques.
Introduction: This study evaluated the impact of dental crowding on the trueness and precision of 6 intraoral scanners (Primescan [Dentsply Sirona], Medit i700 [Medit, Seoul, South Korea], Trios 3 [3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark], iTero Element 5D [Align Technology, San Jose, Calif], Shining 3D [Shining 3D Technology, Hangzhou, China], and Helios 600 [Changzhou Sifary Medical Technology Co Ltd, Changzhou, China]) and extraoral scans of conventional silicone impressions using 3-dimensional-printed mandibular models with different crowding levels.
Methods: Mandibular models with no, slight, and severe crowding were scanned 5 times with each intraoral scanner and silicone impression. Trueness was assessed by comparing scans to a reference scan using Geomagic Control X, whereas precision was evaluated through intragroup comparisons. Root mean square (RMS) values were analyzed using 2-way analysis of variance and post-hoc least significant difference tests (α = 0.05).
Results: Crowding significantly affected both trueness (P = 0.001) and precision (P <0.05), with severe crowding leading to higher RMS values. Scanner type also influenced results (P <0.001 for trueness; P <0.05 for precision). Silicone impressions showed lower trueness (RMS = 0.1027 mm) and precision (RMS = 0.0788 mm) than intraoral scanners (P <0.001). Among scanners, iTero Element 5D and Trios 3 exhibited the highest precision, whereas Primescan had significantly lower trueness. A significant interaction between the scanning method and crowding (P <0.05) indicated crowding effects that varied by the scanner.
Conclusions: Dental crowding reduces the accuracy of intraoral scanners and silicone impressions, particularly in severe malocclusion. Optimizing scanning strategies and selecting the appropriate scanner is essential for improving outcomes in crowded dentitions.
期刊介绍:
Published for more than 100 years, the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics remains the leading orthodontic resource. It is the official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, the American Board of Orthodontics, and the College of Diplomates of the American Board of Orthodontics. Each month its readers have access to original peer-reviewed articles that examine all phases of orthodontic treatment. Illustrated throughout, the publication includes tables, color photographs, and statistical data. Coverage includes successful diagnostic procedures, imaging techniques, bracket and archwire materials, extraction and impaction concerns, orthognathic surgery, TMJ disorders, removable appliances, and adult therapy.