Clinical oral investigations · 2025
Comparison of the accuracy of the image registration methods for the impressions of edentulous jaws.
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.
Liu Mingli, Li Xiaotong, Qu Zhe
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of present study was to investigate the accuracy of two registration methods, best fit alignment and manual multi-point alignment followed by global registration, used in edentulous jaw impressions.
METHODS: Traditional complete denture impressions were taken via two methods: open-mouth and closed-mouth methods. The edentulous impression models, including maxilla:14 pairs and mandible:12 pairs, were scanned in the model scanner and saved in STL format. In the reverse engineering software Geomagic Control 2014, two registration methods, namely, best fit alignment and manual multi-point alignment combined with global registration, were used independently to align the open-mouth and closed-mouth impressions of the same patient, and the 3-dimensional (3D) deviation between the reference and test models was recorded. SPSS26.0, paired t test, significance criterion two-sided α = 0.05.
RESULTS: The nominal value threshold area was less in the best fit alignment group (maxilla 48.58%, mandible 44.16%) than in the manual + global registration group (maxilla 70.55%, mandible 66.27%), maxilla P = 0.000 < 0.05, mandible P = 0.014 < 0.05. The root mean square (RMS), average positive deviation and average negative deviation of the best fit alignment group were greater than those of the manual + global registration group, there were significant differences in the maxillary (P < 0.05), but not significant difference in the mandibular (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The manual multi-point combined global registration method is more accurate than the best fit alignment used in the registration of edentulous jaw impressions and is more effective for the maxilla.
METHODS: Traditional complete denture impressions were taken via two methods: open-mouth and closed-mouth methods. The edentulous impression models, including maxilla:14 pairs and mandible:12 pairs, were scanned in the model scanner and saved in STL format. In the reverse engineering software Geomagic Control 2014, two registration methods, namely, best fit alignment and manual multi-point alignment combined with global registration, were used independently to align the open-mouth and closed-mouth impressions of the same patient, and the 3-dimensional (3D) deviation between the reference and test models was recorded. SPSS26.0, paired t test, significance criterion two-sided α = 0.05.
RESULTS: The nominal value threshold area was less in the best fit alignment group (maxilla 48.58%, mandible 44.16%) than in the manual + global registration group (maxilla 70.55%, mandible 66.27%), maxilla P = 0.000 < 0.05, mandible P = 0.014 < 0.05. The root mean square (RMS), average positive deviation and average negative deviation of the best fit alignment group were greater than those of the manual + global registration group, there were significant differences in the maxillary (P < 0.05), but not significant difference in the mandibular (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The manual multi-point combined global registration method is more accurate than the best fit alignment used in the registration of edentulous jaw impressions and is more effective for the maxilla.