엔도크라운 디지털 인상을 위한 구강스캐너 3종의 정확도 평가: 실험실 연구 Evaluation of the accuracy of three different intraoral scanners for endocrown digital impression: An in vitro study원문보기
Ural, Cagri
(Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayis University)
,
Park, Ji-Man
(Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
,
Kaleli, Necati
(Department of Dentistry Services, Vocational School of Health Services, Ondokuz Mayis University)
,
Caglayan, Esma
(Oral and Dental Health Hospital)
목적:본 연구의 목표는 다른 유형의 엔도크라운(endocrown) 와동 형태를 세 가지 다른 구강스캐너로 디지털 인상을 채득하였을 때의 정확성을 평가하는 것이다. 재료 및 방법: 두 개의 인체 하악 대구치를 협측벽이 있는 것(Class 2)과 협측벽이 없는(Class 3), 두 가지 엔도크라운 지대주 디자인으로 치아형성 하였다. 와동 디자인 2종을 레퍼런스로 탁상용 스캐너(E3, 3shape)와 세 개의 다른 구강스캐너, Trios 3 (3shape, TRI group), Cerec Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona, CER group), i500 (Medit Corp., I5 group)로 스캔하였다. 표준 테셀레이션 언어(.stl) 데이터 세트를 얻어, 계측 소프트웨어에서 불러들였다. 각 구강스캐너로 획득한 반복된 스캔 데이터 사이의 편차에 기초하여 정밀도(precision)를 평가하였다. 기준 데이터와 반복하여 얻은 구강스캔 사이의 편차로서 진도(trueness)를 평가 하였다. 상호작용을 탐지하기 위해 데이터는 일변량 분산분석(ANOVA)을 사용하여 통계적으로 분석하였고, 실험군의 비교 분석을 위해 데이터는 .05의 유의 수준에서 일원 분산분석 및 사후 Tukey 테스트로 분석하였다. 결과: I5 군의 두 와동 형태에 대한 편차값은 진도의 측면에서 다른 구강스캐너 군에 비해 낮았다. 두 와동 디자인 모두에서 TRI 군은 다른 구강스캐너군 보다 우수한 정밀도를 보였다. 결론: 구강스캐너의 다양한 기술과 다양한 엔도크라운 치아형성 디자인이 디지털 스캔의 정확도에 영향을 미쳤다.
목적:본 연구의 목표는 다른 유형의 엔도크라운(endocrown) 와동 형태를 세 가지 다른 구강스캐너로 디지털 인상을 채득하였을 때의 정확성을 평가하는 것이다. 재료 및 방법: 두 개의 인체 하악 대구치를 협측벽이 있는 것(Class 2)과 협측벽이 없는(Class 3), 두 가지 엔도크라운 지대주 디자인으로 치아형성 하였다. 와동 디자인 2종을 레퍼런스로 탁상용 스캐너(E3, 3shape)와 세 개의 다른 구강스캐너, Trios 3 (3shape, TRI group), Cerec Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona, CER group), i500 (Medit Corp., I5 group)로 스캔하였다. 표준 테셀레이션 언어(.stl) 데이터 세트를 얻어, 계측 소프트웨어에서 불러들였다. 각 구강스캐너로 획득한 반복된 스캔 데이터 사이의 편차에 기초하여 정밀도(precision)를 평가하였다. 기준 데이터와 반복하여 얻은 구강스캔 사이의 편차로서 진도(trueness)를 평가 하였다. 상호작용을 탐지하기 위해 데이터는 일변량 분산분석(ANOVA)을 사용하여 통계적으로 분석하였고, 실험군의 비교 분석을 위해 데이터는 .05의 유의 수준에서 일원 분산분석 및 사후 Tukey 테스트로 분석하였다. 결과: I5 군의 두 와동 형태에 대한 편차값은 진도의 측면에서 다른 구강스캐너 군에 비해 낮았다. 두 와동 디자인 모두에서 TRI 군은 다른 구강스캐너군 보다 우수한 정밀도를 보였다. 결론: 구강스캐너의 다양한 기술과 다양한 엔도크라운 치아형성 디자인이 디지털 스캔의 정확도에 영향을 미쳤다.
Purpose: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of three different intraoral scanners (IOSs) on digital impressions of different types of endocrown cavity preparations. Materials and methods: Two human mandibular molar teeth were prepared with different endocrown abutment design...
Purpose: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of three different intraoral scanners (IOSs) on digital impressions of different types of endocrown cavity preparations. Materials and methods: Two human mandibular molar teeth were prepared with different endocrown abutment designs: one with a buccal wall (Class 2) and the other without a buccal wall (Class 3). Both cavity designs were scanned using a reference desktop scanner (E3) and three different intraoral scanners: Trios3 (TRI group), Cerec Omnicam (CER group), and i500 (I5 group). The obtained Standard Tessellation Language (.stl) datasets were exported to metrology software. The precision was evaluated based on deviations among repeated scan models recorded by each IOS. The trueness was evaluated based on deviations between the reference data and repeated scans. For detecting interaction, data were statistically analyzed using a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) and for analyzing the comparison of the test groups data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey test at the significance level of .05. Results: The deviation values for both cavity designs in the I5 group were significantly lower than those in the other IOS groups in terms of trueness. For both cavity designs, the TRI group exhibited better precision than the other IOS groups. Conclusion: Different technologies of IOS device's and different endocrown prepration designs affected the accuracy of the digital scans.
Purpose: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of three different intraoral scanners (IOSs) on digital impressions of different types of endocrown cavity preparations. Materials and methods: Two human mandibular molar teeth were prepared with different endocrown abutment designs: one with a buccal wall (Class 2) and the other without a buccal wall (Class 3). Both cavity designs were scanned using a reference desktop scanner (E3) and three different intraoral scanners: Trios3 (TRI group), Cerec Omnicam (CER group), and i500 (I5 group). The obtained Standard Tessellation Language (.stl) datasets were exported to metrology software. The precision was evaluated based on deviations among repeated scan models recorded by each IOS. The trueness was evaluated based on deviations between the reference data and repeated scans. For detecting interaction, data were statistically analyzed using a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) and for analyzing the comparison of the test groups data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey test at the significance level of .05. Results: The deviation values for both cavity designs in the I5 group were significantly lower than those in the other IOS groups in terms of trueness. For both cavity designs, the TRI group exhibited better precision than the other IOS groups. Conclusion: Different technologies of IOS device's and different endocrown prepration designs affected the accuracy of the digital scans.
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
제안 방법
Each endocrown model was scanned 10 times by each IOS. Accuracy was evaluated by calculating the trueness and precision values. Trueness was defined as the closeness between the reference data and a test object, and precision was defined as the closeness of repeated measurements of the test object (ISO 5725-1).
15 However, there is insufficient research on digital impressions of endocrown cavities. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of three IOSs in terms of digital impressions of two different endocrown cavity designs. The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no significant difference in the accuracy of the IOS in terms of the different preparation geometries.
5 mm in depth from the cemento-enamel junction [CEJ]) was removed. The lingual, mesial, and distal coronal portions were then prepared to 1.5 mm from the CEJ, and the buccal coronal portion was prepared to 3 mm from the CEJ (Class 2). In the second tooth model, the pulp chamber (2.
대상 데이터
The following three IOSs test group were evaluated: TRI group; Trios3 (3shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), CER group; Cerec Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona, York, PA, USA), and I5 group; i500 (Medit Corp., Seoul, Korea). A desktop laboratory scanner (E3;3shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), with accuracy of 7 μm according to IS012836:2015 was used as a reference scanner in the trueness evaluation with IOS test groups.
데이터처리
2), and the average deviation between the scan data and R1 data was considered as the trueness of the scan data. In the precision analysis, 10 scan data obtained by the same IOS were superposed onto each other using metrology software platform (Fig. 3), and the average deviation between 45 pair comparisons was used to determine the precision. Both the trueness and precision analysis were evaluated after conducting the best fit alignment function that works with the iterative closest point algorithm, which provides a standard method for aligning digital 3D files.
The statistical differences between the groups and their interactions were evaluated using a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA). Multiple comparisons between the IOS groups were evaluated by a one-way ANOVA, and multiple comparisons between the two endocrown cavity preparations were evaluated via independent samples T-tests. The significance level was considered .
, Armonk, NY, USA). The statistical differences between the groups and their interactions were evaluated using a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA). Multiple comparisons between the IOS groups were evaluated by a one-way ANOVA, and multiple comparisons between the two endocrown cavity preparations were evaluated via independent samples T-tests.
이론/모형
3), and the average deviation between 45 pair comparisons was used to determine the precision. Both the trueness and precision analysis were evaluated after conducting the best fit alignment function that works with the iterative closest point algorithm, which provides a standard method for aligning digital 3D files. Deviations between polygons formed by the point cloud constituting the two superimposed scans were calculated, and the distance data of all the superimposed pairs were summarized.
성능/효과
According to in vitro test results, the precision values among all the groups ranged from 3.6 μm ± 0.5 to 14.6 μm ± 3.1, and the trueness values ranged from 9.2 ± 1.2 μm to 44.6 ± 3.3 μm.
The univariate ANOVA test results for the trueness analysis are shown in Table 2 and those for the precision analysis are shown in Table 3. According to univariate ANOVA test results of the study, the accuracy of the digital impressions was influenced significantly form the preparation type and different IOS devices. Significant interaction was observed between different IOS device and different preparation designs.
This study has several limitations. First, although all efforts were made to simulate clinical conditions, the absence of sulcular fluid, blood, saliva, patient movements, and temperature-related distortions differed significantly from the clinical setting. In addition, only three IOS systems were tested, and only one axial wall model was created.
후속연구
In addition, only three IOS systems were tested, and only one axial wall model was created. Further studies are needed to evaluate the accuracy of newer IOSs with software updates.
참고문헌 (26)
Hasanzade M, Sahebi M, Zarrati S, Payaminia L, Alikhasi M. Comparative evaluation of the internal and marginal adaptations of CAD/CAM endocrowns and crowns fabricated from three different materials. Int J Prosthodont 2020 Dec 19.
Belleflamme MM, Geerts SO, Louwette MM, Grenade CF, Vanheusden AJ, Mainjot AK. No post-no core approach to restore severely damaged posterior teeth: An up to 10-year retrospective study of documented endocrown cases. J Dent 2017;63:1-7.
Bernhart J, Brauning A, Altenburger MJ, Wrbas KT. Cerec3D endocrowns--two-year clinical examination of CAD/CAM crowns for restoring endodontically treated molars. Int J Comput Dent 2010;13:141-54.
Qin F, Zheng S, Luo Z, Li Y, Guo L, Zhao Y, Fua Q. Evaluation of machinability and flexural strength of a novel dental machinable glass-ceramic. J Dent 2009;37:776-80.
Zimmermann M, Valcanaia A, Neiva G, Mehl A, Fasbinder D. Three-dimensional digital evaluation of the fit of endocrowns fabricated from different CAD/CAM materials. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e504-9.
Yang X, Lv P, Liu Y, Si W, Feng H. Accuracy of digital impressions and fitness of single crowns based on digital impressions. Materials (Basel) 2015;8:3945-57.
Park JM. Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form. J Adv Prosthodont 2016;8:354-62.
Mangano F, Veronesi G. Digital versus analog procedures for the prosthetic restoration of single implants: A randomized controlled trial with 1 year of follow-up. Biomed Res Int 2018;2018:5325032.
Mangano FG, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Imburgia M, Mangano C, Admakin O. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2019;19:101.
Muhlemann S, Kraus RD, Hammerle CHF, Thoma DS. Is the use of digital technologies for the fabrication of implantsupported reconstructions more efficient and/or more effective than conventional techniques: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:184-95.
Carbajal Mejia JB, Wakabayashi K, Nakamura T, Yatani H. Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:392-9.
Ender A, Zimmermann M, Mehl A. Accuracy of completeand partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int J Comput Dent 2019;22:11-9.
Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1759-64.
Park JM, Kim RJ, Lee KW. Comparative reproducibility analysis of 6 intraoral scanners used on complex intracoronal preparations. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123:113-20.
Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:313-20.
Ahlholm P, Sipila K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review. J Prosthodont 2018;27:35-41.
Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, Viguie G, Viennot S, Robinson P, Farges JC, Fages M, Ducret M. Intraoral scanner technologies: A review to make a successful impression. J Healthc Eng 2017;2017:8427595.
Medina-Sotomayor P, Pascual-Moscardo A, Camps I. Relationship between resolution and accuracy of four intraoral scanners in complete-arch impressions. J Clin Exp Dent 2018;10:e361-6.
Jeon JH, Choi BY, Kim CM, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scanned conventional impressions of prepared teeth generated with white- and blue-light scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:549-53.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.