3种口内扫描仪用于咬合关系记录的准确度研究

doi:10.7518/hxkq.2024.2023277

华西口腔医学杂志 ›› 2024, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (2): 227-233.doi: 10.7518/hxkq.2024.2023277

3种口内扫描仪用于咬合关系记录的准确度研究

王思谕¹(), 周哲青¹, 袁泉², 岳莉¹, 杨胜涛¹()

^1.口腔疾病防治全国重点实验室国家口腔医学中心国家口腔疾病临床医学研究中心四川大学华西口腔医院口腔修复工艺科，成都 610041
^2.口腔疾病防治全国重点实验室国家口腔医学中心国家口腔疾病临床医学研究中心四川大学华西口腔医院口腔种植科，成都 610041

收稿日期:2023-08-28 修回日期:2023-12-07 出版日期:2024-04-01 发布日期:2024-03-26
通讯作者: 杨胜涛 E-mail:2732078280@qq.com;shengtao@scu.edu.cn
作者简介:王思谕，技师，硕士，E-mail：2732078280@qq.com
基金资助:
四川大学“国家级大学生创新创业训练计划”项目(2-02310610205);四川大学高等教育教学改革工程研究项目(SCU-10374)

Trueness evaluation of three intraoral scanners for the recording of maximal intercuspal position

Wang Siyu¹(), Zhou Zheqing¹, Yuan Quan², Yue Li¹, Yang Shengtao¹()

^1.State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & Dept. of Dental Technology, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
^2.State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & Dept. of Oral Implantology, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China

Received:2023-08-28 Revised:2023-12-07 Online:2024-04-01 Published:2024-03-26
Contact: Yang Shengtao E-mail:2732078280@qq.com;shengtao@scu.edu.cn
Supported by:
National College Students’ Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program of Sichuan University(202310610205);Research Project on Higher Education Teaching Reform of Sichuan University(SCU10374)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的探究3种口内扫描仪用于获取最大牙尖交错位（MIP）咬合关系的准确度，为临床实践提供参考。方法招募10名上下颌牙列完整、咬合关系正常的受试者。对照组采用面弓转移和咬合记录将位于MIP的上下颌石膏模型固定在𬌗架上，并使用桌面扫描仪对固定的模型进行扫描以获得数字化模型数据；实验组分别使用Trios 3、Carestream 3600以及Aoralscan 3口内扫描仪对受试者进行口内扫描以获取位于MIP时上下颌口扫模型数据。在对照组数字化模型的上下颌双侧中切牙、尖牙和第一磨牙上设置测量点并测量上下颌对应同名牙上测量点之间的距离，获得测量的距离之和D_A，同时计算模型中切牙区、尖牙区以及第一磨牙区的测量点间距离之和，分别记为D_I、D_C、D_M。将添加测量点的对照组上下颌模型分别与实验组上下颌口扫模型进行精确匹配，计算匹配后对照组模型的D_A、D_I、D_C和D_M。对对照组和实验组获得的D_A、D_I、D_C、D_M进行统计学分析，以评估3种口内扫描仪记录咬合关系的准确度。结果对照组D_A、D_I、D_C、D_M的值分别为（39.58±6.40）、（13.64±3.58）、（14.91±2.85）、（11.03±1.56）mm，Trios 3组相应的值为（38.99±6.60）、（13.42±3.66）、（14.55±2.87）、（11.03±1.69）mm，Carestream 3600组相应的值为（38.57±6.36）、（13.56±3.68）、（14.45±2.85）、（10.55±1.41）mm，Aoralscan 3组相应的值为（38.16±5.69）、（13.03±3.54）、（14.23±2.59）、（10.90±1.54）mm。方差分析显示无论是整体偏差D_A（P=0.96），还是局部偏差D_I（P=0.98）、D_C（P=0.96）、D_M（P=0.89），3种口内扫描仪获取的数字化模型与对照组模型之间差异均无统计学意义。结论在规范的操作流程下，3种口内扫描仪获取的MIP咬合关系与传统方法无差异，满足临床诊疗的需求。

关键词: 口内扫描仪, 最大牙尖交错位, 咬合关系, 数字化牙科

Abstract:

Objective This clinical study aimed to assess the trueness of three intraoral scanners for the recor-ding of the maximal intercuspal position (MIP) to provide a reference for clinical practice. Methods Ten participants with good occlusal relationship and healthy temporomandibular joint were recruited. For the control group, facebow transferring procedures were performed, and bite registrations at the MIP were used to transfer maxillary and mandibular casts to a mechanical articulator, which were then scanned with a laboratory scanner to obtain digital cast data. For the experimental groups, three intraoral scanners (Trios 3, Carestream 3600, and Aoralscan 3) were used to obtain digital casts of the participants at the MIP following the scanning workflows endorsed by the corresponding manufacturers. Subsequently, measurement points were marked on the control group’s digital casts at the central incisors, canines, and first molars, and corresponding distances between these points on the maxillary and mandibular casts were measured to calculate the sum of measured distances (D_A). Distances between measurement points in the incisor (D_I), canine (D_C), and first molar (D_M) regions were also calculated. The control group’s maxillary and mandibular digital casts with the added measurement points were aligned with the experimental group’s casts, and D_A, D_I, D_C, and D_M values of the aligned control casts were determined. Statistical analysis was performed on D_A, D_I, D_C, and D_M obtained from both the control and experimental groups to evaluate the trueness of the three intraoral scanners for the recording of MIP. Results In the control group, D_A, D_I, D_C, and D_M values were (39.58±6.40), (13.64±3.58), (14.91±2.85), and (11.03±1.56) mm. The Trios 3 group had values of (38.99±6.60), (13.42±3.66), (14.55±2.87), and (11.03±1.69) mm. The Carestream 3600 group showed values of (38.57±6.36), (13.56±3.68), (14.45±2.85), and (10.55±1.41) mm, while the Aoralscan 3 group had values of (38.16±5.69), (13.03±3.54), (14.23±2.59), and (10.90±1.54) mm. Analysis of variance revealed no statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups for overall deviation D_A (P=0.96), as well as local deviations D_I (P=0.98), D_C (P=0.96), and D_M (P=0.89). Conclusion With standardized scanning protocols, the three intraoral scanners demonstrated comparable trueness to traditional methods in recording MIP, fulfilling clinical requirements.

Key words: intraoral scanner, maximal intercuspal position, occlusal relationship, digital dentistry

中图分类号:

R783

王思谕, 周哲青, 袁泉, 岳莉, 杨胜涛. 3种口内扫描仪用于咬合关系记录的准确度研究[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2024, 42(2): 227-233.

Wang Siyu, Zhou Zheqing, Yuan Quan, Yue Li, Yang Shengtao. Trueness evaluation of three intraoral scanners for the recording of maximal intercuspal position[J]. West China Journal of Stomatology, 2024, 42(2): 227-233.

图/表 6

图 1

图 2

图 3

表 1

图 4

表 2

参考文献 28

1	Tripodakis AP, Vergos VK, Tsoutsos AG. Evaluation of the accuracy of interocclusal records in relation to two recording techniques[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 1997, 77(2): 141-146.
2	Thongthammachat S, Moore BK, Barco MT, et al. Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: influence of tray material, impression material, and time[J]. J Prosthodont, 2002, 11(2): 98-108.
3	Naumovski B, Kapushevska B. Dimensional stability and acuracy of silicone-based impression materials using different impression techniques—A literature review[J]. Pril (Makedon Akad Nauk Umet Odd Med Nauki), 2017, 38(2): 131-138.
4	Al-Odinee NM, Al-Hamzi M, Al-Shami IZ, et al. Eva-luation of the quality of fixed prosthesis impressions in private laboratories in a sample from Yemen[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2020, 20(1): 304.
5	Aragón ML, Pontes LF, Bichara LM, et al. Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review[J]. Eur J Orthod, 2016, 38(4): 429-434.
6	Kong L, Li Y, Liu Z. Digital versus conventional full-arch impressions in linear and 3D accuracy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo studies[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2022, 26(9): 5625-5642.
7	Keul C, Güth JF. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2020, 24(2): 735-745.
8	Yehia A, Abo El Fadl A, El Sergany O, et al. Effect of different span lengths with different total occlusal convergences on the accuracy of intraoral scanners[J]. J Prosthodont, 2023. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13686 .
9	Chen Y, Zhai Z, Watanabe S, et al. Understanding the effect of scan spans on the accuracy of intraoral and desktop scanners[J]. J Dent, 2022, 124: 104220.
10	DeLong R, Ko CC, Anderson GC, et al. Comparing ma-ximum intercuspal contacts of virtual dental patients and mounted dental casts[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2002, 88(6): 622-630.
11	Zimmermann M, Ender A, Attin T, et al. Accuracy of buccal scan procedures for the registration of habitual intercuspation[J]. Oper Dent, 2018, 43(6): 573-580.
12	Revilla-León M, Alonso Pérez-Barquero J, Zubizarreta-Macho Á, et al. Influence of the number of teeth and location of the virtual occlusal record on the accuracy of the maxillo-mandibular relationship obtained by using an intraoral scanner[J]. J Prosthodont, 2023, 32(3): 253-258.
13	Ren S, Morton D, Lin WS. Accuracy of virtual interocclusal records for partially edentulous patients[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2020, 123(6): 860-865.
14	陈玲, 陈成, 李志勇, 等. 口内扫描数字化印模对固定修复临床应用效果的Meta分析[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2021, 39(3): 306-312.
	Chen L, Chen C, Li ZY, et al. Clinical performance of intraoral digital impression for fixed prosthodontics: a Meta-analysis[J]. West China J Stomatol, 2021, 39(3): 306-312.
15	Burzynski JA, Firestone AR, Beck FM, et al. Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: time and patient satisfaction[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2018, 153(4): 534-541.
16	奚祺, 吴国锋. 数字化口内扫描技术的发展与应用[J]. 实用口腔医学杂志, 2021, 37(1): 136-140.
	Xi Q, Wu GF. Development and application of digital intraoral scanning technology[J]. J Pract Stomatol, 2021, 37(1): 136-140.
17	Revilla-León M, Kois DE, Kois JC. A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans: part 2—patient factors[J]. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2023, 35(1): 241-249.
18	Revilla-León M, Kois DE, Kois JC. A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans. Part 1: operator factors[J]. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2023, 35(1): 230-240.
19	Revilla-León M, Subramanian SG, Özcan M, et al. Clinical study of the influence of ambient lighting conditions on the mesh quality of an intraoral scanner[J]. J Prosthodont, 2020, 29(8): 651-655.
20	Edher F, Hannam AG, Tobias DL, et al. The accuracy of virtual interocclusal registration during intraoral scanning[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2018, 120(6): 904-912.
21	Abdulateef S, Edher F, Hannam AG, et al. Clinical accuracy and reproducibility of virtual interocclusal records[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2020, 124(6): 667-673.
22	Chen SY, Liang WM, Chen FN. Factors affecting the accuracy of elastometric impression materials[J]. J Dent, 2004, 32(8): 603-609.
23	Surapaneni H, Samatha YP, Shankar YR, et al. Polyvinylsiloxanes in dentistry: an overview[J]. Trends Biomater Artif Organ, 2013, 27(3): 115-123.
24	Dugal R, Railkar B, Musani S. Comparative evaluation of dimensional accuracy of different polyvinyl siloxane putty-wash impression techniques—in vitro study[J]. J Int Oral Health, 2013, 5(5): 85-94.
25	Mei J, Ma L, Chao J, et al. Three-dimensional analysis of the outcome of different scanning strategies in virtual interocclusal registration[J]. J Adv Prosthodont, 2022, 14(6): 369-378.
26	Revilla-León M, Subramanian SG, Özcan M, et al. Clinical study of the influence of ambient light scanning conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner[J]. J Prosthodont, 2020, 29(2): 107-113.
27	Revilla-León M, Subramanian SG, Att W, et al. Analysis of different illuminance of the room lighting condition on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner[J]. J Prosthodont, 2021, 30(2): 157-162.
28	Revilla-León M, Agustín-Panadero R, Zeitler JM, et al. Differences in maxillomandibular relationship recorded at centric relation when using a conventional method, four intraoral scanners, and a jaw tracking system: a clinical study[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.12.007 .

距离	变异来源	SS	df	MS	F值	P值
D_I	组间变异	2.22	3	0.74	0.057	0.98
	组内变异	471.60	36	13.10
	总变异	473.80	39
D_C	组间变异	2.41	3	0.80	0.10	0.96
	组内变异	281.20	36	7.81
	总变异	283.60	39
D_M	组间变异	1.52	3	0.50	0.21	0.89
	组内变异	87.31	36	2.42
	总变异	88.83	39
D_A	组间变异	11.13	3	3.70	0.094	0.96
	组内变异	1 418.00	36	39.39
	总变异	1 429.00	39

[1]	唐振兴, 钱语然, 任芮葶, 宋万忠, 李宇. 自主最大笑容三维面像与数字化三维牙列模型整合方法的建立及其准确性研究[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2024, 42(3): 334-339.
[2]	朱湛枫, 杨婷婷, 陈沁怡, 邱伟恩, 黎詠珊, 林意蓝, 班宇. 屏障材料自体浓缩生长因子膜和骨胶原在后牙区牙槽嵴保存术中的应用：一项1年随访的前瞻性队列研究[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2024, 42(3): 346-352.
[3]	陈罗娜, 张鑫, 田正宇, 王剑. 人工老化对不同品牌超透氧化锆光学特性的影响[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2024, 42(3): 353-358.
[4]	杜桥, 牛光良. 激光及涂层表面处理对氧化锆陶瓷粘接强度的影响[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2024, 42(3): 359-364.
[5]	王瑞斌, 胥铭章, 王兰, 郑紫阳, 邓云艺, 曾茂云, 袁玲玲, 彭培钊, 刘奇奇, 余科. 一种通用型牙种植导板在牙模上模拟后牙区种植的精度评价[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2024, 42(3): 365-371.
[6]	任碧晖, 徐业豪, 戴婕婷, 郭水根, 魏洪武. 纯莫氏锥度连接种植系统种植体-基台锁结力及基台下沉量的实验研究[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2024, 42(3): 372-381.
[7]	陈韵伊, 孙慈吉, 黎红. 不翻瓣种植术与翻瓣种植术对软组织影响的Meta分析[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2024, 42(3): 382-393.
[8]	郭艳玲, 李嘉鑫, 刘欣然, 岳源, 魏娜, 王敏, 郝亮. 数字化咬合功能分析指导下的全口精准咬合重建1例[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2024, 42(3): 394-402.
[9]	王剑, 杨林新. 氧化锆全冠的临床应用原则及新进展[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2024, 42(2): 135-141.
[10]	于海洋, 赵俊颐, 孙蔓琳. 基于审美分析的口腔美容修复分类诊疗方案（二）：中式审美的内涵与分析方案[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2024, 42(2): 154-162.
[11]	陈芯伊, 蒋晓鸽, 陈嵩. 成年正畸患者颧牙槽嵴区微种植钉植入的位点选择[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2024, 42(2): 207-213.
[12]	龚衍吉, 刘洋, 尹德强. 数字孪生辅助调整颌位流程的临床新技术和应用效果研究[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2024, 42(2): 268-276.
[13]	周哲青, 王思谕, 袁泉, 岳莉, 杨胜涛. 一种全数字化前伸髁导斜度测量方法的准确性研究[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2024, 42(1): 67-74.
[14]	于海洋, 赵俊颐, 孙蔓琳. 基于审美分析的口腔美容修复分类诊疗方案（一）：基本概念、决策树及临床路径[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2024, 42(1): 19-27.
[15]	侯玮玮, 郑绪红, 陈晓玲, 蔡蔚靓, 王朝阳, 苏智伟, 赵鹃. 数字化技术在酸蚀症伴重度磨耗患者功能美学缺陷修复中的应用1例[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2024, 42(1): 111-120.

3种口内扫描仪用于咬合关系记录的准确度研究

Trueness evaluation of three intraoral scanners for the recording of maximal intercuspal position

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 28

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

距离	对照组	实验组1	实验组2	实验组3
D_I	13.64±3.58	13.42±3.66	13.56±3.68	13.03±3.54
D_C	14.91±2.85	14.55±2.87	14.45±2.85	14.23±2.59
D_M	11.03±1.56	11.03±1.69	10.55±1.41	10.90±1.54
D_A	39.58±6.40	38.99±6.60	38.57±6.36	38.16±5.69