{"title":"数字和传统植入物印模之间的准确性比较:二维和三维评估。","authors":"Chuang Bi, Xingyu Wang, Fangfang Tian, Zhe Qu, Jiaming Zhao","doi":"10.4047/jap.2022.14.4.236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The present study compared the accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The experimental models were divided into six groups depending on the implant location and the scanning span. Digital impressions were captured using the intraoral optical scanner TRIOS (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Conventional impressions were taken with the monophase impression material based on addition-cured silicones, Honigum-Mono (DMG, Hamburg, Germany). A high-precision laboratory scanner D900 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used to obtain digital data of resin models and stone casts. Surface tessellation language (STL) datasets from scanner were imported into the analysis software Geomagic Qualify 14 (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA), and scan body deviations were determined through two-dimensional and three-dimensional analyses. Each scan body was measured five times. The Sidak t test was used to analyze the experimental data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Implant position and scanning distance affected the impression accuracy. For a unilateral arch implant and the mandible models with two implants, no significant difference was observed in the accuracy between the digital and conventional implant impressions on scan bodies; however, the corresponding differences for trans-arch implants and mandible with six implants were extremely significant (<i>P</i><.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For short-span scanning, the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions did not differ significantly. For long-span scanning, the precision of digital impressions was significantly inferior to that of the traditional impressions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51291,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics","volume":"14 4","pages":"236-249"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/78/17/jap-14-236.PMC9444482.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions: two and three dimensional evaluations.\",\"authors\":\"Chuang Bi, Xingyu Wang, Fangfang Tian, Zhe Qu, Jiaming Zhao\",\"doi\":\"10.4047/jap.2022.14.4.236\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The present study compared the accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The experimental models were divided into six groups depending on the implant location and the scanning span. Digital impressions were captured using the intraoral optical scanner TRIOS (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Conventional impressions were taken with the monophase impression material based on addition-cured silicones, Honigum-Mono (DMG, Hamburg, Germany). A high-precision laboratory scanner D900 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used to obtain digital data of resin models and stone casts. Surface tessellation language (STL) datasets from scanner were imported into the analysis software Geomagic Qualify 14 (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA), and scan body deviations were determined through two-dimensional and three-dimensional analyses. Each scan body was measured five times. The Sidak t test was used to analyze the experimental data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Implant position and scanning distance affected the impression accuracy. For a unilateral arch implant and the mandible models with two implants, no significant difference was observed in the accuracy between the digital and conventional implant impressions on scan bodies; however, the corresponding differences for trans-arch implants and mandible with six implants were extremely significant (<i>P</i><.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For short-span scanning, the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions did not differ significantly. For long-span scanning, the precision of digital impressions was significantly inferior to that of the traditional impressions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51291,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics\",\"volume\":\"14 4\",\"pages\":\"236-249\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/78/17/jap-14-236.PMC9444482.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2022.14.4.236\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/8/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2022.14.4.236","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
摘要
目的:本研究比较了数字和传统种植印模的准确性。材料与方法:实验模型根据种植体位置和扫描跨度分为6组。使用口腔内光学扫描仪TRIOS (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark)捕获数字印象。常规印模采用基于添加固化有机硅的单相印模材料,Honigum-Mono (DMG, Hamburg, Germany)。高精度实验室扫描仪D900 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark)用于获取树脂模型和石头铸件的数字数据。将扫描仪的表面镶嵌语言(STL)数据集导入分析软件Geomagic quali14 (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA),并通过二维和三维分析确定扫描体偏差。每个扫描体测量5次。采用Sidak t检验对实验数据进行分析。结果:种植体位置和扫描距离影响印模精度。对于单侧弓形种植体和双种植体下颌骨模型,数字种植体和传统种植体在扫描体上的印模精度没有显著差异;然而,跨弓种植体与下颌骨6个种植体的相应差异非常显著(p结论:在短时间扫描中,数字种植体和传统种植体印模的准确性没有显著差异。对于大跨度扫描,数字印模的精度明显低于传统印模。
Comparison of accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions: two and three dimensional evaluations.
Purpose: The present study compared the accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions.
Materials and methods: The experimental models were divided into six groups depending on the implant location and the scanning span. Digital impressions were captured using the intraoral optical scanner TRIOS (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Conventional impressions were taken with the monophase impression material based on addition-cured silicones, Honigum-Mono (DMG, Hamburg, Germany). A high-precision laboratory scanner D900 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used to obtain digital data of resin models and stone casts. Surface tessellation language (STL) datasets from scanner were imported into the analysis software Geomagic Qualify 14 (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA), and scan body deviations were determined through two-dimensional and three-dimensional analyses. Each scan body was measured five times. The Sidak t test was used to analyze the experimental data.
Results: Implant position and scanning distance affected the impression accuracy. For a unilateral arch implant and the mandible models with two implants, no significant difference was observed in the accuracy between the digital and conventional implant impressions on scan bodies; however, the corresponding differences for trans-arch implants and mandible with six implants were extremely significant (P<.001).
Conclusion: For short-span scanning, the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions did not differ significantly. For long-span scanning, the precision of digital impressions was significantly inferior to that of the traditional impressions.
期刊介绍:
This journal aims to convey scientific and clinical progress in the field of prosthodontics and its related areas to many dental communities concerned with esthetic and functional restorations, occlusion, implants, prostheses, and biomaterials related to prosthodontics.
This journal publishes
• Original research data of high scientific merit in the field of diagnosis, function, esthetics and stomatognathic physiology related to prosthodontic rehabilitation, physiology and mechanics of occlusion, mechanical and biologic aspects of prosthodontic materials including dental implants.
• Review articles by experts on controversies and new developments in prosthodontics.
• Case reports if they provide or document new fundamental knowledge.