传统印模与口内扫描在单侧唇腭裂研究中的比较

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 PEDIATRICS
Tomoyo Okazaki, Hitoshi Kawanabe, Kazunori Fukui
{"title":"传统印模与口内扫描在单侧唇腭裂研究中的比较","authors":"Tomoyo Okazaki,&nbsp;Hitoshi Kawanabe,&nbsp;Kazunori Fukui","doi":"10.1111/cga.12499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP) encounter various problems, including disorders related to feeding, esthetics, and pronunciation. We compared two impression methods, conventional impression making and intraoral scanning, to study unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). Patients with UCLP (<i>n</i> = 7) were selected, and palatal impressions were taken by two steps: (1) impressions were obtained using an addition silicone rubber impression material, and a plaster model was prepared and (2) optical impressions were obtained using a desktop three-dimensional (3D) scanner and stereolithography (STL). Data were generated by two impression system combinations through STL. The results were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis or Mann–Whitney <i>U</i> test. There were no significant differences in the dimensions of the models between both groups. The measured depth of the alveolar cleft defects was deeper in the plaster model group (STL) than in the intraoral scanner group (STL). Digital models may prevent the risk of aspiration and respiratory disorders by using impression materials for preoperative jaw treatment of newborns and infants. We compared the results of both impression methods in the same patient and found that a shift to the 3D printer model is a safe alternative for preoperative jaw correction, as evidenced from the amount of tissue displaced due to the pressure applied during impression taking. In the future, we would like to conduct clinical research with a larger sample size of CLP patients to further corroborate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":10626,"journal":{"name":"Congenital Anomalies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cga.12499","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of conventional impression making and intraoral scanning for the study of unilateral cleft lip and palate\",\"authors\":\"Tomoyo Okazaki,&nbsp;Hitoshi Kawanabe,&nbsp;Kazunori Fukui\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cga.12499\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP) encounter various problems, including disorders related to feeding, esthetics, and pronunciation. We compared two impression methods, conventional impression making and intraoral scanning, to study unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). Patients with UCLP (<i>n</i> = 7) were selected, and palatal impressions were taken by two steps: (1) impressions were obtained using an addition silicone rubber impression material, and a plaster model was prepared and (2) optical impressions were obtained using a desktop three-dimensional (3D) scanner and stereolithography (STL). Data were generated by two impression system combinations through STL. The results were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis or Mann–Whitney <i>U</i> test. There were no significant differences in the dimensions of the models between both groups. The measured depth of the alveolar cleft defects was deeper in the plaster model group (STL) than in the intraoral scanner group (STL). Digital models may prevent the risk of aspiration and respiratory disorders by using impression materials for preoperative jaw treatment of newborns and infants. We compared the results of both impression methods in the same patient and found that a shift to the 3D printer model is a safe alternative for preoperative jaw correction, as evidenced from the amount of tissue displaced due to the pressure applied during impression taking. In the future, we would like to conduct clinical research with a larger sample size of CLP patients to further corroborate these findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10626,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Congenital Anomalies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cga.12499\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Congenital Anomalies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cga.12499\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Congenital Anomalies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cga.12499","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

唇腭裂(CLP)患者会遇到各种各样的问题,包括与喂养,美学和发音有关的障碍。我们比较了常规印模和口内扫描两种印模方法对单侧唇腭裂(UCLP)的影响。选取7例UCLP患者,分两步进行腭印模:(1)使用添加的硅橡胶印模材料获得印模,并制作石膏模型;(2)使用桌面三维(3D)扫描仪和立体光刻(STL)获得光学印模。数据由两个印象系统通过STL组合生成。使用Kruskal-Wallis或Mann-Whitney U检验分析结果。两组间模型的维度无显著差异。石膏模型组(STL)的牙槽裂隙缺损深度明显大于口内扫描组(STL)。数字模型可以通过使用印模材料对新生儿和婴儿进行术前颌骨治疗来预防误吸和呼吸系统疾病的风险。我们比较了同一患者两种印模方法的结果,发现改用3D打印机模型是术前颌骨矫正的安全选择,这一点从印模取过程中施加压力造成的组织移位量可以证明。在未来,我们希望开展更大样本量的CLP患者临床研究,进一步证实这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of conventional impression making and intraoral scanning for the study of unilateral cleft lip and palate

Comparison of conventional impression making and intraoral scanning for the study of unilateral cleft lip and palate

Patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP) encounter various problems, including disorders related to feeding, esthetics, and pronunciation. We compared two impression methods, conventional impression making and intraoral scanning, to study unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). Patients with UCLP (n = 7) were selected, and palatal impressions were taken by two steps: (1) impressions were obtained using an addition silicone rubber impression material, and a plaster model was prepared and (2) optical impressions were obtained using a desktop three-dimensional (3D) scanner and stereolithography (STL). Data were generated by two impression system combinations through STL. The results were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis or Mann–Whitney U test. There were no significant differences in the dimensions of the models between both groups. The measured depth of the alveolar cleft defects was deeper in the plaster model group (STL) than in the intraoral scanner group (STL). Digital models may prevent the risk of aspiration and respiratory disorders by using impression materials for preoperative jaw treatment of newborns and infants. We compared the results of both impression methods in the same patient and found that a shift to the 3D printer model is a safe alternative for preoperative jaw correction, as evidenced from the amount of tissue displaced due to the pressure applied during impression taking. In the future, we would like to conduct clinical research with a larger sample size of CLP patients to further corroborate these findings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Congenital Anomalies
Congenital Anomalies PEDIATRICS-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Congenital Anomalies is the official English language journal of the Japanese Teratology Society, and publishes original articles in laboratory as well as clinical research in all areas of abnormal development and related fields, from all over the world. Although contributions by members of the teratology societies affiliated with The International Federation of Teratology Societies are given priority, contributions from non-members are welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信