Abdullah Alehaideb, Wei-Shao Lin, John A Levon, Tien-Min G Chu, Chao-Chieh Yang
{"title":"全口义齿数字复制扫描方法的准确性。","authors":"Abdullah Alehaideb, Wei-Shao Lin, John A Levon, Tien-Min G Chu, Chao-Chieh Yang","doi":"10.1111/jopr.13788","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the accuracy of four digital scanning methods in duplicating a complete denture.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Four scanning methods were used: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), Straumann desktop scanner (DS), Trios intraoral scanner (TIO), and Virtuo Vivo intraoral scanner (VVIO). Each method was used to duplicate all the surfaces of a printed complete denture. The denture was scanned 10 times in each group. The trueness (in root mean square, RMS) and precision (in standard deviation, SD) were calculated by comparing the combined dentition, denture extension, and intaglio surfaces with the reference file. One-way analysis of variance and F-tests were used to test statistical differences (α = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the scanning accuracy of the whole denture, CBCT showed the highest RMS (0.249 ± 0.020 mm) and lowest trueness than DS (0.124 ± 0.014 mm p < 0.001), TIO (0.131 ± 0.006 mm p < 0.001), and VVIO (0.227 ± 0.020 mm p = 0.017), while DS and TIO showed smaller RMS than VVIO (p < 0.001). For the trueness of dentition, denture extension, and intaglio surfaces, CBCT also showed the highest mean RMS and lowest trueness among all groups (p < 0.001). DS and TIO had smaller mean RMS and higher trueness among all groups in all surfaces (p < 0.001, except VVIO in intaglio surface, p > 0.05). TIO had significantly lower within-group variability of RMS and highest precision compared to DS (p = 0.013), CBCT (p = 0.001), and VVIO (p < 0.001) in the combined surface. For dentition and denture extension surfaces, TIO showed similar within-group variability of RMS with the DS group (p > 0.05) and lower than CBCT and VVIO (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The 7 Series desktop scanner and Trios 4 intraoral scanner can duplicate dentures in higher trueness than CBCT and the Virtuo Vivo intraoral scanner. The Trios 4 intraoral scanner was more precise in the combined surfaces than other scanning methods, while the 7 Series desktop scanner and Trios 4 intraoral scanner were more precise in the denture extension surface.</p>","PeriodicalId":49152,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":"42-48"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11730745/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of digital duplication scanning methods for complete dentures.\",\"authors\":\"Abdullah Alehaideb, Wei-Shao Lin, John A Levon, Tien-Min G Chu, Chao-Chieh Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jopr.13788\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the accuracy of four digital scanning methods in duplicating a complete denture.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Four scanning methods were used: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), Straumann desktop scanner (DS), Trios intraoral scanner (TIO), and Virtuo Vivo intraoral scanner (VVIO). Each method was used to duplicate all the surfaces of a printed complete denture. The denture was scanned 10 times in each group. The trueness (in root mean square, RMS) and precision (in standard deviation, SD) were calculated by comparing the combined dentition, denture extension, and intaglio surfaces with the reference file. One-way analysis of variance and F-tests were used to test statistical differences (α = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the scanning accuracy of the whole denture, CBCT showed the highest RMS (0.249 ± 0.020 mm) and lowest trueness than DS (0.124 ± 0.014 mm p < 0.001), TIO (0.131 ± 0.006 mm p < 0.001), and VVIO (0.227 ± 0.020 mm p = 0.017), while DS and TIO showed smaller RMS than VVIO (p < 0.001). For the trueness of dentition, denture extension, and intaglio surfaces, CBCT also showed the highest mean RMS and lowest trueness among all groups (p < 0.001). DS and TIO had smaller mean RMS and higher trueness among all groups in all surfaces (p < 0.001, except VVIO in intaglio surface, p > 0.05). TIO had significantly lower within-group variability of RMS and highest precision compared to DS (p = 0.013), CBCT (p = 0.001), and VVIO (p < 0.001) in the combined surface. For dentition and denture extension surfaces, TIO showed similar within-group variability of RMS with the DS group (p > 0.05) and lower than CBCT and VVIO (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The 7 Series desktop scanner and Trios 4 intraoral scanner can duplicate dentures in higher trueness than CBCT and the Virtuo Vivo intraoral scanner. The Trios 4 intraoral scanner was more precise in the combined surfaces than other scanning methods, while the 7 Series desktop scanner and Trios 4 intraoral scanner were more precise in the denture extension surface.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"42-48\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11730745/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13788\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13788","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Accuracy of digital duplication scanning methods for complete dentures.
Purpose: To compare the accuracy of four digital scanning methods in duplicating a complete denture.
Material and methods: Four scanning methods were used: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), Straumann desktop scanner (DS), Trios intraoral scanner (TIO), and Virtuo Vivo intraoral scanner (VVIO). Each method was used to duplicate all the surfaces of a printed complete denture. The denture was scanned 10 times in each group. The trueness (in root mean square, RMS) and precision (in standard deviation, SD) were calculated by comparing the combined dentition, denture extension, and intaglio surfaces with the reference file. One-way analysis of variance and F-tests were used to test statistical differences (α = 0.05).
Results: For the scanning accuracy of the whole denture, CBCT showed the highest RMS (0.249 ± 0.020 mm) and lowest trueness than DS (0.124 ± 0.014 mm p < 0.001), TIO (0.131 ± 0.006 mm p < 0.001), and VVIO (0.227 ± 0.020 mm p = 0.017), while DS and TIO showed smaller RMS than VVIO (p < 0.001). For the trueness of dentition, denture extension, and intaglio surfaces, CBCT also showed the highest mean RMS and lowest trueness among all groups (p < 0.001). DS and TIO had smaller mean RMS and higher trueness among all groups in all surfaces (p < 0.001, except VVIO in intaglio surface, p > 0.05). TIO had significantly lower within-group variability of RMS and highest precision compared to DS (p = 0.013), CBCT (p = 0.001), and VVIO (p < 0.001) in the combined surface. For dentition and denture extension surfaces, TIO showed similar within-group variability of RMS with the DS group (p > 0.05) and lower than CBCT and VVIO (p < 0.001).
Conclusion: The 7 Series desktop scanner and Trios 4 intraoral scanner can duplicate dentures in higher trueness than CBCT and the Virtuo Vivo intraoral scanner. The Trios 4 intraoral scanner was more precise in the combined surfaces than other scanning methods, while the 7 Series desktop scanner and Trios 4 intraoral scanner were more precise in the denture extension surface.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Prosthodontics promotes the advanced study and practice of prosthodontics, implant, esthetic, and reconstructive dentistry. It is the official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, the American Dental Association-recognized voice of the Specialty of Prosthodontics. The journal publishes evidence-based original scientific articles presenting information that is relevant and useful to prosthodontists. Additionally, it publishes reports of innovative techniques, new instructional methodologies, and instructive clinical reports with an interdisciplinary flair. The journal is particularly focused on promoting the study and use of cutting-edge technology and positioning prosthodontists as the early-adopters of new technology in the dental community.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
