International orthodontics · 2025
Accuracy and reliability comparison between different intraoral scanning devices in patients with permanent dentition: A prospective clinical study.
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.
Cavalcanti Heloísa Nelson, Ribeiro de Almeida Lázaro Vinícius, da Silva Vinícius Merino, Bellini-Pereira Silvio Augusto, Janson Guilherme, Garib Daniela, Henriques José Fernando Castanha
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study primarily aimed to compare the accuracy and secondarily the reliability of different intraoral scanning (IOS) devices using intra- and interarch linear measurements of three-dimensional digital dental models.
METHODS: Digital dental models were divided into three groups based on their acquisition method: group T (GT) using the Trios® IOS, group P (GP) using the Panda® (IOS), and the control group (CG) consisting of plaster models digitized with the E3® desktop scanner. Two examiners measured the following variables using the OrthoAnalyzer® software: mesiodistal tooth width, clinical crown height, intercanine, interpremolar and intermolar distances, arch perimeter, arch length, overjet and overbite. Intra- and inter-examiner reliability was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman test. Intergroup comparisons were performed using the analysis of variance (Anova) followed by Tukey tests (P<0.05).
RESULTS: The sample consisted of 25 volunteers (11 men, 14 women) with a mean age of 29.6years. Overall, the measurements of digital models obtained from the Trios®, Panda® and the E3® desktop scanner were comparable. For intermolar distance, the mean and standard deviation were as follows: GT (52.4±3.55), GP (52.6±3.56), and CG (52.1±3.96) with P=0.896 for the maxillary arch, and GT (45.8±3.87), GP (46.3±4.40), and CG (46.3±4.08), with P=0.848 for the mandibular arch. No statistically significant differences were observed regarding this and other variables. Measurements showed good to excellent reliability for both Trios® and Panda® IOS.
CONCLUSION: The three scanning devices Trios®, Panda® and E3® presented similar and adequate accuracy and reliability.
METHODS: Digital dental models were divided into three groups based on their acquisition method: group T (GT) using the Trios® IOS, group P (GP) using the Panda® (IOS), and the control group (CG) consisting of plaster models digitized with the E3® desktop scanner. Two examiners measured the following variables using the OrthoAnalyzer® software: mesiodistal tooth width, clinical crown height, intercanine, interpremolar and intermolar distances, arch perimeter, arch length, overjet and overbite. Intra- and inter-examiner reliability was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman test. Intergroup comparisons were performed using the analysis of variance (Anova) followed by Tukey tests (P<0.05).
RESULTS: The sample consisted of 25 volunteers (11 men, 14 women) with a mean age of 29.6years. Overall, the measurements of digital models obtained from the Trios®, Panda® and the E3® desktop scanner were comparable. For intermolar distance, the mean and standard deviation were as follows: GT (52.4±3.55), GP (52.6±3.56), and CG (52.1±3.96) with P=0.896 for the maxillary arch, and GT (45.8±3.87), GP (46.3±4.40), and CG (46.3±4.08), with P=0.848 for the mandibular arch. No statistically significant differences were observed regarding this and other variables. Measurements showed good to excellent reliability for both Trios® and Panda® IOS.
CONCLUSION: The three scanning devices Trios®, Panda® and E3® presented similar and adequate accuracy and reliability.