F. Mandelli, E. Gherlone, A. Keeling, G. Gastaldi, M. Ferrari
{"title":"全弓口内扫描:两种不同策略的比较及其准确性结果","authors":"F. Mandelli, E. Gherlone, A. Keeling, G. Gastaldi, M. Ferrari","doi":"10.23805/JO.2018.10.03.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim To test if there is a difference in accuracy between full-arch scans performed as two separate halves and stitched together, or as one continuous scan from side to side.\n\nMaterials and Methods A reference model with six implants was milled as a single titanium block. Six scan bodies were manufactured and screwed into the implants. A reference 3D model was created using an industrial optical scanner. The experiment was performed using the same intraoral scanning machine (3M True Definition Scanner). The ‘Stitching’ strategy had the scan started from #27 to #13;after saving this part, the same procedure was performed from #17 to #23 and the software stitched the two halves automatically. The ‘No Stitching’ strategy had the scan performed as a single procedure. Using engineering software, six copies of the scan body CAD file were substituted to the six scan bodies of the RM and the centre point of each one was determined. Linear measurements were made between the detected points; mean distance and standard deviation were calculated for each of the fifteen measurement sets created.\n\nResults Stitching and No Stitching did not show statistically significant differences (Stitching=0.0396 mm ±0.0409 mm, No Stitching=0.0452 mm ±0,0481 mm, p=.338) but they differed significantly comparing absolute errors (Stitching=0.0442 mm ±0.0358 mm, No Stitching=0.0555 mm±0,036 mm, p=.015).\n\nConclusions Stitching showed a better precision compared to No Stitching, exhibiting a smaller standard deviation and a higher error density closer to zero.","PeriodicalId":42724,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Osseointegration","volume":"35 1","pages":"65-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Full-arch intraoral scanning: comparison of two different strategies and their accuracy outcomes\",\"authors\":\"F. Mandelli, E. Gherlone, A. Keeling, G. Gastaldi, M. Ferrari\",\"doi\":\"10.23805/JO.2018.10.03.01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim To test if there is a difference in accuracy between full-arch scans performed as two separate halves and stitched together, or as one continuous scan from side to side.\\n\\nMaterials and Methods A reference model with six implants was milled as a single titanium block. Six scan bodies were manufactured and screwed into the implants. A reference 3D model was created using an industrial optical scanner. The experiment was performed using the same intraoral scanning machine (3M True Definition Scanner). The ‘Stitching’ strategy had the scan started from #27 to #13;after saving this part, the same procedure was performed from #17 to #23 and the software stitched the two halves automatically. The ‘No Stitching’ strategy had the scan performed as a single procedure. Using engineering software, six copies of the scan body CAD file were substituted to the six scan bodies of the RM and the centre point of each one was determined. Linear measurements were made between the detected points; mean distance and standard deviation were calculated for each of the fifteen measurement sets created.\\n\\nResults Stitching and No Stitching did not show statistically significant differences (Stitching=0.0396 mm ±0.0409 mm, No Stitching=0.0452 mm ±0,0481 mm, p=.338) but they differed significantly comparing absolute errors (Stitching=0.0442 mm ±0.0358 mm, No Stitching=0.0555 mm±0,036 mm, p=.015).\\n\\nConclusions Stitching showed a better precision compared to No Stitching, exhibiting a smaller standard deviation and a higher error density closer to zero.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42724,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Osseointegration\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"65-74\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Osseointegration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23805/JO.2018.10.03.01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Osseointegration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23805/JO.2018.10.03.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
摘要
目的测试全弓扫描作为两个分开的半部分缝合在一起,或作为一个连续的扫描从一边到另一边,是否有准确性的差异。材料与方法将6个种植体的参考模型磨成单个钛块。制作了六个扫描体并将其旋入植入物中。使用工业光学扫描仪创建了参考3D模型。实验使用相同的口腔内扫描仪(3M真清扫描仪)进行。“缝合”策略从第27号到第13号开始扫描;保存该部分后,从第17号到第23号执行相同的程序,软件自动缝合两半。“无缝合”策略将扫描作为单一程序进行。利用工程软件将六份扫描体CAD文件替换为RM的六个扫描体,并确定每个扫描体的中心点。在测点之间进行线性测量;计算了所创建的15个测量集的平均距离和标准差。结果缝线组与无缝线组的绝对误差比较差异有统计学意义(缝线组=0.0396 mm±0.0409 mm,无缝线组=0.0452 mm±0.0481 mm, p= 0.338),但两者的绝对误差比较差异有统计学意义(缝线组=0.0442 mm±0.0358 mm,无缝线组=0.0555 mm±0.036 mm, p= 0.015)。结论与不缝合相比,缝合精度更高,标准差更小,误差密度更接近于零。
Full-arch intraoral scanning: comparison of two different strategies and their accuracy outcomes
Aim To test if there is a difference in accuracy between full-arch scans performed as two separate halves and stitched together, or as one continuous scan from side to side.
Materials and Methods A reference model with six implants was milled as a single titanium block. Six scan bodies were manufactured and screwed into the implants. A reference 3D model was created using an industrial optical scanner. The experiment was performed using the same intraoral scanning machine (3M True Definition Scanner). The ‘Stitching’ strategy had the scan started from #27 to #13;after saving this part, the same procedure was performed from #17 to #23 and the software stitched the two halves automatically. The ‘No Stitching’ strategy had the scan performed as a single procedure. Using engineering software, six copies of the scan body CAD file were substituted to the six scan bodies of the RM and the centre point of each one was determined. Linear measurements were made between the detected points; mean distance and standard deviation were calculated for each of the fifteen measurement sets created.
Results Stitching and No Stitching did not show statistically significant differences (Stitching=0.0396 mm ±0.0409 mm, No Stitching=0.0452 mm ±0,0481 mm, p=.338) but they differed significantly comparing absolute errors (Stitching=0.0442 mm ±0.0358 mm, No Stitching=0.0555 mm±0,036 mm, p=.015).
Conclusions Stitching showed a better precision compared to No Stitching, exhibiting a smaller standard deviation and a higher error density closer to zero.