Clinical oral investigations · 2025
Accuracy of full arch scans performed with nine different scanning patterns- an in vitro study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schlögl Kerstin, Güth Jan-Frederik, Graf Tobias, Keul Christine
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the accuracy of direct digitization of maxillary scans depending on the scanning strategy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A maxillary model with a metal bar as a reference structure fixed between the second molars was digitized using the CEREC Primescan AC scanner (N = 225 scans). Nine scanning strategies were selected (n = 25 scans per strategy), differing in scan area segmentation (F = full jaw, H = half jaw, S = sextant) and scan movement pattern (L = linear, Z = zig-zag, C = combined). Trueness was assessed by evaluating linear differences in the X, Y, and Z axes and angular deviations (α axial, α coronal, α total) compared to a reference dataset. Statistical differences were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (p<0.017). Precision was analyzed by the standard deviation of linear and angular aberrations (ISO 5725-1) (p < 0.05).
RESULTS: Strategy FL showed significantly higher trueness and precision than FZ for VE (p = 0.009), VE(y) (p = 0.010), αoverall (p = 0.004), and αaxial (p = 0.002). Strategy FC demonstrated significantly better trueness than FZ for VE (p = 0.007), αoverall (p = 0.010), and αcoronal (p = 0.013). For scan segmentation, FL showed better trueness for VE(y) (p = 0.001) and αaxial (p < 0.001) than HL. Strategy HL showed better trueness for VE(z) than for FL and SL (p = 0.001, p = 0.002). The scanning patterns FL, FC, and HL exhibited the best performance for trueness and precision.
CONCLUSIONS: Scanning motion and segmentation have a significant impact on the trueness and precision of full-arch scans.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The scanning strategy is decisive in enhancing the clinical workflow and the accuracy of full-arch scans.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A maxillary model with a metal bar as a reference structure fixed between the second molars was digitized using the CEREC Primescan AC scanner (N = 225 scans). Nine scanning strategies were selected (n = 25 scans per strategy), differing in scan area segmentation (F = full jaw, H = half jaw, S = sextant) and scan movement pattern (L = linear, Z = zig-zag, C = combined). Trueness was assessed by evaluating linear differences in the X, Y, and Z axes and angular deviations (α axial, α coronal, α total) compared to a reference dataset. Statistical differences were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (p<0.017). Precision was analyzed by the standard deviation of linear and angular aberrations (ISO 5725-1) (p < 0.05).
RESULTS: Strategy FL showed significantly higher trueness and precision than FZ for VE (p = 0.009), VE(y) (p = 0.010), αoverall (p = 0.004), and αaxial (p = 0.002). Strategy FC demonstrated significantly better trueness than FZ for VE (p = 0.007), αoverall (p = 0.010), and αcoronal (p = 0.013). For scan segmentation, FL showed better trueness for VE(y) (p = 0.001) and αaxial (p < 0.001) than HL. Strategy HL showed better trueness for VE(z) than for FL and SL (p = 0.001, p = 0.002). The scanning patterns FL, FC, and HL exhibited the best performance for trueness and precision.
CONCLUSIONS: Scanning motion and segmentation have a significant impact on the trueness and precision of full-arch scans.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The scanning strategy is decisive in enhancing the clinical workflow and the accuracy of full-arch scans.