Journal of dental sciences · 2023
Accuracy comparison of scan segmental sequential ranges with two intraoral scanners for maxilla and mandible.
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.
Liu Chih-Te, Chen Jen-Hao, Du Je-Kang, Hung Chun-Cheng, Lan Ting-Hsun
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The accuracy of a full-arch scan by using an intraoral scanner should be validated under clinical conditions. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in the maxilla and mandible using two intra oral scanners with three different scan segmental sequential ranges.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dental model with 28 teeth in their normal positions served as the reference. Sixty full-arch scans were performed using Trios 3 and Trios 4, employing scanning strategy O (manufacturer's original method), OH (segmental sequential ranges one half), and TQ (segmental sequential ranges third quarter). Trueness was evaluated by comparing digital impressions with a reference dataset using specialized software. One-way ANOVA and Tukey tests assessed differences between the groups.
RESULTS: For Trios 3 on the maxilla, no significant difference was found among the groups of trueness; in the mandible, strategy O exhibited a significant difference (P = 0.008) with the highest deviation. For Trios 4 on the maxilla, strategy TQ demonstrated the lowest deviation with a significant difference (P = 0.006); in the mandible, no significant difference was found among the groups of trueness.
CONCLUSION: Strategy TQ exhibited the best trueness for Trios 3 and Trios 4, suggesting it may be preferred for higher accuracy. Clinicians should consider these findings when selecting scanning strategies and intraoral scanners for specific cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dental model with 28 teeth in their normal positions served as the reference. Sixty full-arch scans were performed using Trios 3 and Trios 4, employing scanning strategy O (manufacturer's original method), OH (segmental sequential ranges one half), and TQ (segmental sequential ranges third quarter). Trueness was evaluated by comparing digital impressions with a reference dataset using specialized software. One-way ANOVA and Tukey tests assessed differences between the groups.
RESULTS: For Trios 3 on the maxilla, no significant difference was found among the groups of trueness; in the mandible, strategy O exhibited a significant difference (P = 0.008) with the highest deviation. For Trios 4 on the maxilla, strategy TQ demonstrated the lowest deviation with a significant difference (P = 0.006); in the mandible, no significant difference was found among the groups of trueness.
CONCLUSION: Strategy TQ exhibited the best trueness for Trios 3 and Trios 4, suggesting it may be preferred for higher accuracy. Clinicians should consider these findings when selecting scanning strategies and intraoral scanners for specific cases.