Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2025
Evaluation of 2 intraoral scanners and a desktop scanner for replicating removable complete dentures of various anatomies.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Le Texier Louise, Nicolas Emmanuel, Batisse Cindy
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Technological advances have enabled intraoral scanners (IOSs) to replicate removable complete dentures (RCDs). The authors evaluated the acquisition effectiveness and accuracy of scanners for RCD replication and the impact of artificial landmarks on acquisition success for maxillary (mx) RCDs.
METHODS: Two IOSs (Primescan, Dentsply Sirona and TRIOS 4, 3Shape A/S) and 1 desktop scanner (DS) (D2000, 3Shape A/S) scanned 10 mx and 10 mandibular RCDs. Mx RCDs were rescanned with IOSs using artificial landmarks. Acquired files were compared with the reference, the virtual RCD design file using Geomagic software (3D Systems). Objective measurements included acquisition effectiveness, assessed visually and statistically (Pearson χ2 test); accuracy, evaluated through trueness (average closeness); and precision (repeatability) (univariate analysis of variance and Student-Newman-Keuls test, α = .05); and clinical accuracy, assessed using tolerance thresholds and colorimetric deviation maps.
RESULTS: Only the DS successfully replicated all RCDs. The IOSs failed to acquire some mx RCDs (Primescan, 50%; TRIOS 4, 10%) with no substantial improvement using landmarks. The DS had the highest trueness (mean [SD], 28 [22] μm; P < .05). Primescan and TRIOS 4 had similar trueness (mean [SD], 59 [19] μm and 60 [25] μm, respectively). The DS and Primescan had superior precision (mean [SD], 72 [36] μm and 70 [20] μm, respectively) than TRIOS 4 (mean [SD], 104 [29] μm) (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The DS is the most reliable for replicating RCDs. RCD characteristics influenced IOS acquisition success.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Digital RCD scanning may enhance clinical workflows. Acquiring the mandibular RCD is more feasible than acquiring the mx RCD. Optimizing techniques and identifying factors facilitating acquisition are essential for clinical viability.
METHODS: Two IOSs (Primescan, Dentsply Sirona and TRIOS 4, 3Shape A/S) and 1 desktop scanner (DS) (D2000, 3Shape A/S) scanned 10 mx and 10 mandibular RCDs. Mx RCDs were rescanned with IOSs using artificial landmarks. Acquired files were compared with the reference, the virtual RCD design file using Geomagic software (3D Systems). Objective measurements included acquisition effectiveness, assessed visually and statistically (Pearson χ2 test); accuracy, evaluated through trueness (average closeness); and precision (repeatability) (univariate analysis of variance and Student-Newman-Keuls test, α = .05); and clinical accuracy, assessed using tolerance thresholds and colorimetric deviation maps.
RESULTS: Only the DS successfully replicated all RCDs. The IOSs failed to acquire some mx RCDs (Primescan, 50%; TRIOS 4, 10%) with no substantial improvement using landmarks. The DS had the highest trueness (mean [SD], 28 [22] μm; P < .05). Primescan and TRIOS 4 had similar trueness (mean [SD], 59 [19] μm and 60 [25] μm, respectively). The DS and Primescan had superior precision (mean [SD], 72 [36] μm and 70 [20] μm, respectively) than TRIOS 4 (mean [SD], 104 [29] μm) (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The DS is the most reliable for replicating RCDs. RCD characteristics influenced IOS acquisition success.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Digital RCD scanning may enhance clinical workflows. Acquiring the mandibular RCD is more feasible than acquiring the mx RCD. Optimizing techniques and identifying factors facilitating acquisition are essential for clinical viability.