Journal of dentistry · 2024
Impact of the superimposition methods on accuracy analyses in complete-arch digital implant investigation.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Limones Alvaro, Cascos Rocío, Molinero-Mourelle Pedro, Abou-Ayash Samir, de Parga Juan Antonio Martínez Vázquez, Celemin Alicia, Gómez-Polo Miguel
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To measure the impact of the superimposition methods on accuracy analyses in digital implant research using an ISO-recommended 3-dimensional (3D) metrology-grade inspection software.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A six-implant edentulous maxillary model was scanned using a desktop scanner (7Series; DentalWings; Montreal, Canada) and an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 4; 3Shape; Copenhagen, Denmark) to generate a reference and an experimental mesh, respectively. Thirty experimental standard tesselletion language (STL) files were superimposed onto the reference model's STL using the core features of six superimposition methods, creating the following groups: initial automated pre-alignment (GI), landmark-based alignment (G1), partial area-based alignment (G2), entire area-based alignment (G3), and double alignment combining landmark-based alignment with entire model area-based alignment (G4 ) or the scan bodies' surface (G5). The groups underwent various alignment variations, resulting in sixteen subgroups (n = 30). The alignment accuracy between experimental and reference meshes was quantified by using the root mean square (RMS) error as trueness and its fluctuation as precision. The Kruskal-Wallis test with a subsequent adjusted post-hoc Dunn's pairwise comparison test was used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). The reliability of the measurements was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
RESULTS: A total of 480 superimpositions were performed. No significant differences were found in trueness and precision among the groups (p > 0.05), except for partial area-based alignment (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed significant differences for partial area-based alignment considering only one scan body (p < 0.001). Initial automated alignment was as accurate as landmark-based, partial, or entire area-based alignments (p > 0.05). Double alignments did not improve alignment accuracy (p > 0.05). The entire area-based alignment of the scan bodies' surface had the least effect on accuracy analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Digital oral implant investigation remains unaffected by the superimposition method when ISO-recommended 3D metrology-grade inspection software is used. At least two scan bodies are needed when considering partial area-based alignments.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The superimposition method choice within the tested ISO-recommended 3D inspection software did not impact accuracy analyses in digital implant investigation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A six-implant edentulous maxillary model was scanned using a desktop scanner (7Series; DentalWings; Montreal, Canada) and an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 4; 3Shape; Copenhagen, Denmark) to generate a reference and an experimental mesh, respectively. Thirty experimental standard tesselletion language (STL) files were superimposed onto the reference model's STL using the core features of six superimposition methods, creating the following groups: initial automated pre-alignment (GI), landmark-based alignment (G1), partial area-based alignment (G2), entire area-based alignment (G3), and double alignment combining landmark-based alignment with entire model area-based alignment (G4 ) or the scan bodies' surface (G5). The groups underwent various alignment variations, resulting in sixteen subgroups (n = 30). The alignment accuracy between experimental and reference meshes was quantified by using the root mean square (RMS) error as trueness and its fluctuation as precision. The Kruskal-Wallis test with a subsequent adjusted post-hoc Dunn's pairwise comparison test was used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). The reliability of the measurements was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
RESULTS: A total of 480 superimpositions were performed. No significant differences were found in trueness and precision among the groups (p > 0.05), except for partial area-based alignment (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed significant differences for partial area-based alignment considering only one scan body (p < 0.001). Initial automated alignment was as accurate as landmark-based, partial, or entire area-based alignments (p > 0.05). Double alignments did not improve alignment accuracy (p > 0.05). The entire area-based alignment of the scan bodies' surface had the least effect on accuracy analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Digital oral implant investigation remains unaffected by the superimposition method when ISO-recommended 3D metrology-grade inspection software is used. At least two scan bodies are needed when considering partial area-based alignments.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The superimposition method choice within the tested ISO-recommended 3D inspection software did not impact accuracy analyses in digital implant investigation.