Clinical evaluation of the precision of interocclusal registration by using digital and conventional techniques
Clinical evaluation of the precision of interocclusal registration by using digital and conventional techniques
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.021
复制
发表时间：
2022-10-26
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Baba, Kazuyoshi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Iwauchi, Yotaro;Tanaka, Shinpei;Baba, Kazuyoshi
问题陈述。虽然有研究评估了口腔内扫描仪（iiss）获得的数据的准确性，但对iiss进行咬合配准的准确性的研究还很缺乏。本临床研究的目的是比较IOS与传统的硅胶印模和石膏铸模的咬合配准精度。材料和方法。8名具有完整自然牙列的参与者被纳入研究。使用3M真清扫描仪和TRIOS扫描仪3扫描上颌和下颌象限弓及其咬合关系。在常规方法中，使用硅胶印模材料制作全弓牙列和象限弓牙列的印模，并制作石膏模型，安装在与硅胶咬合记录相关的牙齿咬合器上，并用3D实验室扫描仪扫描。这些过程重复4次，每种情况下生成4组标准镶嵌语言（STL）格式的咬合配准数据。采用最佳拟合算法，通过确定重复测量的STL数据的差异来评估牙合配准精度。所有参与者的平均差异为：True Definition为25 +/- 12 gm， TRIOS 3为31 +/- 7 gm， complete arch为154 +/- 59 gm， quadrant arch为128 +/- 33 gm。Kruskal-Wallis检验显示，印象方法对差异的影响具有统计学意义(P
Statement of problem. Although studies have evaluated the accuracy of data obtained by intraoral scanners (IOSs), studies on the precision of interocclusal registrations made with IOSs are lacking.Purpose. The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the precision of IOS interocclusal registration with that of conventional methods with a silicone impression material and a gypsum cast.Material and methods. Eight participants with complete natural dentitions were enrolled. Images of their maxillary and mandibular quadrant arches and their interocclusal relationship were scanned with 2 IOSs: the 3M True Definition Scanner and the TRIOS Scanner 3. In the conventional method, impressions of complete-arch dentition and quadrant-arch dentition were made with a silicone impression material, and gypsum casts were fabricated, mounted on a dental articulator related with a silicone interocclusal record, and scanned with a 3D laboratory scanner. These procedures were repeated 4 times, and 4 sets of interocclusal registration data in standard tessellation language (STL) format were generated for each condition. Interocclusal registration precision was evaluated by determining the discrepancy of the STL data between repeated measurements by using the best -fit-algorithm method.Results. The average discrepancies for all participants were 25 +/- 12 gm for the True Definition, 31 +/- 7 gm for the TRIOS 3, 154 +/- 59 gm for the complete arch, and 128 +/- 33 gm for the quadrant arch. The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed that the effect of the impression methods on the discrepancy was statistically significant (P