Journal of dental sciences · 2023
Trueness of intraoral scanning for different tooth-size arch-length deficiencies.
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.
Lin Wei-Qi, Pan Chin-Yun, Chen Ping-Ho, Liu Chih-Te, Hung Chun-Cheng, Lan Ting-Hsun
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: As science and technology continue to advance, the utilization of intraoral scanners (IOSs) has become increasingly popular in the orthodontic workflow. The aim of this study was to discuss whether the degree of crowded arches affects scan accuracy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different crowding levels of dental models (model MI: mild, model MO: moderate, and model SE: severe) were scanned using both an IOS and desktop scanner. Stereolithographic files were obtained and superimposed via CAD software to calculate differences between each measuring point of a model and the farthest corresponding point. The deviations from three models were compared with statistical analysis.
RESULTS: The trueness of different crowding arches showed that the deviation value of model SE was the maximum, followed by model MI, and model MO in the maxillary arch. In the mandibular arch, the order of the deviation from greatest to least was firstly model SE, then model MO, and model MI. Significant differences were observed among the maxillary models (P < 0.001), but there was no significant difference between models in the mandible (P = 0.669).
CONCLUSION: The trueness of the three crowded arches is in the clinically acceptable range. The degree of crowding increases, the trueness of scanning at each position decreases. In the maxillary arch, more severe crowding corresponds to higher deviations. In the mandible, the degree of crowding is not explicitly related to the maximum deviation; therefore, the clinician should notice the deviation when using IOSs for crowding cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different crowding levels of dental models (model MI: mild, model MO: moderate, and model SE: severe) were scanned using both an IOS and desktop scanner. Stereolithographic files were obtained and superimposed via CAD software to calculate differences between each measuring point of a model and the farthest corresponding point. The deviations from three models were compared with statistical analysis.
RESULTS: The trueness of different crowding arches showed that the deviation value of model SE was the maximum, followed by model MI, and model MO in the maxillary arch. In the mandibular arch, the order of the deviation from greatest to least was firstly model SE, then model MO, and model MI. Significant differences were observed among the maxillary models (P < 0.001), but there was no significant difference between models in the mandible (P = 0.669).
CONCLUSION: The trueness of the three crowded arches is in the clinically acceptable range. The degree of crowding increases, the trueness of scanning at each position decreases. In the maxillary arch, more severe crowding corresponds to higher deviations. In the mandible, the degree of crowding is not explicitly related to the maximum deviation; therefore, the clinician should notice the deviation when using IOSs for crowding cases.