Journal of stomatology, oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026
Accuracy of a novel maxillomandibular relationship transfer technique versus model scanning and intraoral scanning: An in vivo 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.
Ma Wen-Jie, Wu Zhi-Xiao, Shao Liang, Zhao Xiao-Le, Ding Qian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Integrating the model scanning (MS) and intraoral scanning (IOS) techniques, a new digital technique, MS+IOS, was proposed. To evaluate the accuracy among the MS, IOS, and MS+IOS techniques in vivo.
METHODS: Three techniques were used to obtain full-arch digital maxillomandibular relationships in maximum intercuspal position (MIP) on 15 healthy participants: (1) IOS group: digital dental casts were automatically registered by using an intraoral scanner; (2) MS group: stone casts were digitized and registered by using a laboratory scanner; (3) MS+IOS group: digital dental casts from the MS group were registered with buccal occlusal records captured through the IOS group in reverse engineering software. Trueness was assessed using multiple outcomes, with deviation value of the posterior occlusal surfaces serving as the primary outcome. Additionally, the occlusal clearance value was quantified for each group to support the outcome measures. Precision was evaluated in the MS and MS+IOS groups.
RESULTS: The posterior region of the IOS group exhibited significantly greater deviations (-203.80 [-246.90, -146.20] μm) compared with the MS+IOS group (-110.04 [-221.58, -51.80] μm, P=.047) in the occlusal direction; the MS group deviated 3.35(-42.05, 185.98) μm toward the gingival direction. Corresponding to occlusal clearance, the IOS group had the highest average negative value (-128.20 [-199.90, -104.60] μm, P<.025); the MS group had the highest average positive value (544.00 [503.60, 571.70] μm, P<.025). In canine region, the IOS group showed significantly lowest distance (138.26 [83.52, 198.24] μm, P<.025) and angular deviations (1.04 [0.51, 1.35]°, P<.025). Precision was 12.2 ± 17.4 μm in the MS group, whereas it was 48.9 ± 29.2 μm in the MS+IOS group.
CONCLUSIONS: The full-arch maxillomandibular relationship obtained by the MS+IOS technique achieved the best trueness in the posterior region, less occlusal penetration, and clinically acceptable precision. IOS showed the best trueness in the canine region. The MS technique exhibited a trend of occlusal separation.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial number: ChiCTR2400084020. Date of registration: 2024-05-09.
METHODS: Three techniques were used to obtain full-arch digital maxillomandibular relationships in maximum intercuspal position (MIP) on 15 healthy participants: (1) IOS group: digital dental casts were automatically registered by using an intraoral scanner; (2) MS group: stone casts were digitized and registered by using a laboratory scanner; (3) MS+IOS group: digital dental casts from the MS group were registered with buccal occlusal records captured through the IOS group in reverse engineering software. Trueness was assessed using multiple outcomes, with deviation value of the posterior occlusal surfaces serving as the primary outcome. Additionally, the occlusal clearance value was quantified for each group to support the outcome measures. Precision was evaluated in the MS and MS+IOS groups.
RESULTS: The posterior region of the IOS group exhibited significantly greater deviations (-203.80 [-246.90, -146.20] μm) compared with the MS+IOS group (-110.04 [-221.58, -51.80] μm, P=.047) in the occlusal direction; the MS group deviated 3.35(-42.05, 185.98) μm toward the gingival direction. Corresponding to occlusal clearance, the IOS group had the highest average negative value (-128.20 [-199.90, -104.60] μm, P<.025); the MS group had the highest average positive value (544.00 [503.60, 571.70] μm, P<.025). In canine region, the IOS group showed significantly lowest distance (138.26 [83.52, 198.24] μm, P<.025) and angular deviations (1.04 [0.51, 1.35]°, P<.025). Precision was 12.2 ± 17.4 μm in the MS group, whereas it was 48.9 ± 29.2 μm in the MS+IOS group.
CONCLUSIONS: The full-arch maxillomandibular relationship obtained by the MS+IOS technique achieved the best trueness in the posterior region, less occlusal penetration, and clinically acceptable precision. IOS showed the best trueness in the canine region. The MS technique exhibited a trend of occlusal separation.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial number: ChiCTR2400084020. Date of registration: 2024-05-09.