Journal of dentistry · 2026
Evaluation of the minimal interproximal dental distance to be reproduced with intraoral scanners under dry or wet conditions, with and without high-definition mode.
СтатьяСравнительное 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.
Gómez-Polo Miguel, Revilla-León Marta, Barmak Abdul B, Martínez María, Cascos Rocío
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The minimum interdental distance (ID) required to reproduce interproximal spaces with intraoral scanners (IOS) is unknown under both dry and wet conditions, in either normal or high-definition scanning mode.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the minimum ID required for its reproduction without errors, under both dry and wet conditions, as well as when employing high-definition mode or not.
METHODS: Interproximal spaces were created in a maxillary model between the second right premolars and first molars, forming seven groups from 0.2 to 0.8 mm. Ten scans were performed for each ID, under dry or wet conditions, with 3 IOS models (N = 420): Elite Shining AOral, Medit i700, and TRIOS 5. The obtained scans (STL) were classified as 1. Complete error; 2. Partial Error; 3. No Error. Ordinal categorical variables were described using counts and percentages among different IDs. Chi-square tests were applied to assess significant differences among IOS models in HD and Normal modes, under wet and dry conditions for each interproximal space.
RESULTS: Under both dry and wet conditions, the 0.2-, 0.3-, and 0.4-mm groups recorded 100 % Complete Errors. Under dry conditions: at 0.5 mm, Partial Errors (66.7 %) and No Errors (33.3 %) were observed, with differences between IOSs (P < .001); at 0.6 mm, no Complete Errors were observed, and differences were found among IOSs in both HD and normal modes (P < .001 and P = .032). At 0.7- and 0.8 mm, 100 % of the samples were classified as No Error. Under wet conditions, at 0.5 mm, all samples showed Partial Error. At 0.6 mm, differences among IOSs were revealed in both normal and HD modes (P < .001; P < .001), TRIOS 5 HD showed the highest No Errors percentage (70 %). At 0.7 mm, all groups were classified as No Errors (100 %), except Medit i700 (10 % Partial Errors). At 0.8 mm, all samples showed no errors (100.0 %).
CONCLUSIONS: Under dry conditions, a threshold interdental thickness for reliable reproduction may be considered 0.5-0.6 mm across the different IOS models. Likewise, under wet conditions, a minimal interdental thickness of 0.6-0.7 mm may be established.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the minimum ID required for its reproduction without errors, under both dry and wet conditions, as well as when employing high-definition mode or not.
METHODS: Interproximal spaces were created in a maxillary model between the second right premolars and first molars, forming seven groups from 0.2 to 0.8 mm. Ten scans were performed for each ID, under dry or wet conditions, with 3 IOS models (N = 420): Elite Shining AOral, Medit i700, and TRIOS 5. The obtained scans (STL) were classified as 1. Complete error; 2. Partial Error; 3. No Error. Ordinal categorical variables were described using counts and percentages among different IDs. Chi-square tests were applied to assess significant differences among IOS models in HD and Normal modes, under wet and dry conditions for each interproximal space.
RESULTS: Under both dry and wet conditions, the 0.2-, 0.3-, and 0.4-mm groups recorded 100 % Complete Errors. Under dry conditions: at 0.5 mm, Partial Errors (66.7 %) and No Errors (33.3 %) were observed, with differences between IOSs (P < .001); at 0.6 mm, no Complete Errors were observed, and differences were found among IOSs in both HD and normal modes (P < .001 and P = .032). At 0.7- and 0.8 mm, 100 % of the samples were classified as No Error. Under wet conditions, at 0.5 mm, all samples showed Partial Error. At 0.6 mm, differences among IOSs were revealed in both normal and HD modes (P < .001; P < .001), TRIOS 5 HD showed the highest No Errors percentage (70 %). At 0.7 mm, all groups were classified as No Errors (100 %), except Medit i700 (10 % Partial Errors). At 0.8 mm, all samples showed no errors (100.0 %).
CONCLUSIONS: Under dry conditions, a threshold interdental thickness for reliable reproduction may be considered 0.5-0.6 mm across the different IOS models. Likewise, under wet conditions, a minimal interdental thickness of 0.6-0.7 mm may be established.