The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 2024
Accuracy of maximum intercuspal position located by using four intraoral scanners and an artificial intelligence-based program.
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.
Revilla-León Marta, Fernández-Estevan Lucía, Barmak Abdul B, Kois John C, Alonso Pérez-Barquero Jorge
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Maxillary and mandibular scans can be articulated in maximum intercuspal position (MIP) by using an artificial intelligence (AI) based program; however, the accuracy of the AI-based program locating the MIP relationship is unknown.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present clinical study was to assess the accuracy of the MIP relationship located by using 4 intraoral scanners (IOSs) and an AI-based program.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Conventional casts of a participant mounted on an articulator in MIP were digitized (T710). Four groups were created based on the IOS used to record a maxillary and mandibular scan of the participant: TRIOS 4, iTero, i700, and PrimeScan. Each pair of nonarticulated scans were duplicated 20 times. Three subgroups were created: IOS, AI-articulated, and AI-IOS-corrected subgroups (n=10). In the IOS-subgroup, 10 duplicated scans were articulated in MIP by using a bilateral occlusal record. In the AI-articulated subgroup, the remaining 10 duplicated scans were articulated in MIP by using an AI-based program (BiteFinder). In the AI-IOS-corrected subgroup, the same AI-based program was used to correct the occlusal collisions of the articulated specimens obtained in the IOS-subgroup. A reverse engineering program (Geomagic Wrap) was used to calculate 36 interlandmark measurements on the digitized articulated casts (control) and each articulated specimen. Two-way ANOVA and pairwise multiple comparison Tukey tests were used to analyze trueness (α=.05). The Levene and pairwise multiple comparison Wilcoxon rank tests were used to analyze precision (α=.05).
RESULTS: Significant trueness discrepancies among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P<.001) were found, with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P<.001). The Levene test showed significant precision discrepancies among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P=.005). The TRIOS 4 and iTero groups obtained better trueness and lower precision than the i700 and PrimeScan systems. Additionally, the AI-articulated subgroup showed worse trueness and precision than the IOS and AI-IOS-corrected subgroups. The AI-based program improved the MIP trueness of the scans articulated by using the iTero and PrimeScan systems but reduced the MIP trueness of the articulated scans obtained by using the TRIOS 4 and i700.
CONCLUSIONS: The trueness and precision of the maxillomandibular relationship was impacted by the IOS system and program used to locate the MIP.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present clinical study was to assess the accuracy of the MIP relationship located by using 4 intraoral scanners (IOSs) and an AI-based program.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Conventional casts of a participant mounted on an articulator in MIP were digitized (T710). Four groups were created based on the IOS used to record a maxillary and mandibular scan of the participant: TRIOS 4, iTero, i700, and PrimeScan. Each pair of nonarticulated scans were duplicated 20 times. Three subgroups were created: IOS, AI-articulated, and AI-IOS-corrected subgroups (n=10). In the IOS-subgroup, 10 duplicated scans were articulated in MIP by using a bilateral occlusal record. In the AI-articulated subgroup, the remaining 10 duplicated scans were articulated in MIP by using an AI-based program (BiteFinder). In the AI-IOS-corrected subgroup, the same AI-based program was used to correct the occlusal collisions of the articulated specimens obtained in the IOS-subgroup. A reverse engineering program (Geomagic Wrap) was used to calculate 36 interlandmark measurements on the digitized articulated casts (control) and each articulated specimen. Two-way ANOVA and pairwise multiple comparison Tukey tests were used to analyze trueness (α=.05). The Levene and pairwise multiple comparison Wilcoxon rank tests were used to analyze precision (α=.05).
RESULTS: Significant trueness discrepancies among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P<.001) were found, with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P<.001). The Levene test showed significant precision discrepancies among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P=.005). The TRIOS 4 and iTero groups obtained better trueness and lower precision than the i700 and PrimeScan systems. Additionally, the AI-articulated subgroup showed worse trueness and precision than the IOS and AI-IOS-corrected subgroups. The AI-based program improved the MIP trueness of the scans articulated by using the iTero and PrimeScan systems but reduced the MIP trueness of the articulated scans obtained by using the TRIOS 4 and i700.
CONCLUSIONS: The trueness and precision of the maxillomandibular relationship was impacted by the IOS system and program used to locate the MIP.