为了研究不同口内扫描仪的精度,我们对如下六台设备做了相应的准备工作:iTero(Align Technology,圣若泽,加利福尼亚),True Definition(3M ESPE,圣保罗,明尼苏达),PlanScan (Planmeca/E4D Technologies,理查森,德克萨斯),CS 3500(Carestream Health,罗契斯特,纽约),TRIOS(3Shape A/S,哥本哈根,丹麦),和CEREC AC omnicam(西诺德牙科设备,本斯海姆,德国)(如表1)。一个用丙烯酸树脂(自凝牙托粉,朗牙有限公司,威灵,以色列)复制的正畸操作牙科模型(日进牙科产品,京都,日本)已经制备完成。模具牙(简单齿根模型,恒牙,[A5A-200],日进牙科产品,京都,日本)已经嵌入该丙烯酸模型中,同时上颌右部第一磨牙也已完成制作全瓷冠的准备工作(如图1)。该丙烯酸树脂模型将通过一台工业级,超高精度参照扫描仪(ATOS 第三代蓝光三维扫描仪,8百万像素,100毫米透镜组, GOM mbh,布伦瑞克,德国)进行扫描,以便得到数字参考资料。此外,该树脂模型将由一位已经过培训并富有操作经验的医生(S.P.),使用以上六种品牌的设备,在三种不同的场合中分别进行扫描测试。
扫描系统 | 制造商 |
iTero | Align Technology San Jose, CA |
True Definition | 3M ESPE St. Paul, MN |
PlanScan | Planmeca/E4D Technologies Richardson, TX |
CS 3500 | Carestream Health Rochester, NY |
TRIOS | 3Shape A/S Copenhagen, Denmark |
CEREC AC OmniCam | Sirona Dental Systems Bensheim, Germany |
表1:待评测的扫描仪品牌
图1:已嵌入模具牙的参考模型
因为3M True Definition需要喷粉,所以我们将采用特定的操作顺序,以避免对样本模型产生任何可能的污染。所有的数据集(STL 文件格式)将会载入三维(3D)评估软件(Geomagic Qualify,2013, 莫里斯维尔,北卡罗来纳州)。加载完成后,已预备冠区域的数码影像将会独立出来,移除与本次研究主题无关的区域。然后我们会针对扫描仪的准确度和精确度进行评估。对于准确度的评估,由扫描仪获取的图形数据和参考图像数据进行叠加( 软件最优算法),同时进行三维数据对比(N=3/口内扫描仪)。对于精确度的评估,任意一组从扫描仪获取的图像数据均会和另外两组从相同设备获取的图像数据进行叠加(N=3/口内扫描仪,1和2,1和3,2和3),同时评估三维偏差。
同样的,精确度由高至低依次为:TRIOS (4.5 ± 0.9 μm),True Definition (6.1 ± 1.0 μm),iTero (7.0 ± 1.4 μm),CS3500 (7.2 ± 1.7 μm),CEREC OmniCam (16.2 ± 4.0 μm),和PlanScan (26.4 ± 5.0 μm) (如图3),其中任意5台设备数据和另1台设备数据之间的统计学差异均是保持一致的(p <>
图2:六台扫描仪在准确度测量中的绝对平均偏差
图3:六台扫描仪在:精确度测量中的绝对平均偏差
参考文献:
1. Carrotte PV, Winstanley RB, Green JR. A study of the quality of impressions for anterior crowns received at a commercial laboratory. Br Dent J 1993;174(7):235-40.
2. Winstanley RB, Carrotte PV, Johnson A. The quality of impressions for crowns and bridges received at commercial dental laboratories. Br Dent J 1997;183(6):209-13.
3. Millstein PL. Determining the accuracy of gypsum casts made from type IV dental stone. J Oral Rehabil 1992;19(3):239-43.
4. Reich S, Vollborn T, Mehl A, Zimmermann M. Intraoral optical impression systems — an overview. Int J Comput Dent 2013;16(2):143-62.
5. Logozzo S, Franceschini G, Kilpel? A, et al. A Comparative Analysis Of Intraoral 3d Digital Scanners For Restorative Dentistry. The Internet Journal of Medical Technology 2011;5(1).
6. Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17(4): 1201-8.
7. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18(6):1687-94.
8. Patzelt SB, Bishti S, Stampf S, Att W. Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data. J Am Dent Assoc 2014;145(11):1133-40.
9. Patzelt SB, Vonau S, Stampf S, Att W. Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws. J Am Dent Assoc 2013;144(8):914-20.
10. Babayoff N, Glaser-Inbari I, inventors; Cadent Ltd., Or Yehuda (IL), assignee. Imaging a three-dimensional structure by confocal focussing an arry of light beams. US patent US 6,697,164 B1. 2004 Feb 24.
11. Fisker R, ?JELUND H, Kj?r R, et al. Focus scanning apparatus: Google Patents;2010.
12. Mehl A, Ender A, M?rmann W, Attin T. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. International journal of computerized dentistry 2009;12(1):11-28.
13. Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S. Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. International journal of computerized dentistry 2005;8(4):283-94.
出自│美国牙科学会
联系客服