Dentistry journal · 2024
Different Methods of Scan Alignment in Erosive Tooth Wear Measurements: 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.
Loumprinis Nikolaos, Michou Stavroula, Rahiotis Christos
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Model alignment in cases of erosive tooth wear can be challenging, and no method has been reported to outweigh the others.
METHODS: Extracted human teeth were mounted on two models and scanned at different times, from 1 h to 2 weeks, with an intraoral scanner (3Shape TRIOS 4) before and after immersion in Monster® energy drink and tap water. The scans were superimposed (3Shape TRIOS Patient Monitoring, Version 2.2.3.3, 3Shape A/S, Copengagen, Denmark). Best fit, best-fit tooth comparison, reference best fit using fillings, and palatal rugae as reference points were used for alignment. Surface profile differences were calculated in a cross-section view. The nonparametric Bland-Altman and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used.
RESULTS: First, statistically significant differences were marked after 4 days of immersion. The measurements obtained after 2 weeks of immersion were statistically significantly different from the measurements obtained at the different time points until 1 week. No statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed among the alignment methods at any time.
CONCLUSION: In comparison to the best-fit model, both palatal rugae and fillings can be used. The best-fit tooth comparison method is a reliable option; however, it should be used with caution in cases of major surface loss.
METHODS: Extracted human teeth were mounted on two models and scanned at different times, from 1 h to 2 weeks, with an intraoral scanner (3Shape TRIOS 4) before and after immersion in Monster® energy drink and tap water. The scans were superimposed (3Shape TRIOS Patient Monitoring, Version 2.2.3.3, 3Shape A/S, Copengagen, Denmark). Best fit, best-fit tooth comparison, reference best fit using fillings, and palatal rugae as reference points were used for alignment. Surface profile differences were calculated in a cross-section view. The nonparametric Bland-Altman and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used.
RESULTS: First, statistically significant differences were marked after 4 days of immersion. The measurements obtained after 2 weeks of immersion were statistically significantly different from the measurements obtained at the different time points until 1 week. No statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed among the alignment methods at any time.
CONCLUSION: In comparison to the best-fit model, both palatal rugae and fillings can be used. The best-fit tooth comparison method is a reliable option; however, it should be used with caution in cases of major surface loss.