Abstract：
Clinical studies comparing the accuracy of digital and conventional records for static interocclusal registration are lacking. Therefore, the purpose of this clinical study was to assess the precision of digital interocclusal registration compared to conventional registration for full arch and quadrant arch conditions.
Nine individuals with complete natural dentition were enrolled in this study. Each participant received digital scans, conventional impressions, and static interocclusal records according to the following groups: group DF, full arch digital scans and bilateral buccal scans with Medit i700 intraoral scanner (IOS); group DQ, quadrant arch digital scans and unilateral buccal scans with Medit i700 IOS; group CF, full arch polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impressions and PVS interocclusal records; group CQ, quadrant arch PVS impressions and PVS interocclusal records. For group CF and group CQ, the impressions were poured, mounted with the silicone bites, scanned with a laboratory scanner, and articulated virtually with buccal scans with the laboratory scanner. In each group, each participant received three interocclusal records to repeat the virtual articulation three times and the articulated models were saved as STL files. The STL files were imported into a 3D-processing software to calculate the discrepancies between repeated measures using best-fit-alignment method. The significance between the study groups was calculated with two-tailed paired t-test at P < 0.05.
For full arch, group DF showed significantly better precision with a mean value of 31 ± 19 µm compared to 204 ± 81 µm for group CF (P = 0.0003). Similarly, for quadrant arch, group DQ showed significantly better precision with a mean value of 18 ± 6 µm compared to 255 ± 136 µm for group CQ (P = 0.0009). No significant difference in precision was found between quadrant arch and full arch when the digital or the conventional method was used.
The digital approach had significantly better precision for static interocclusal registration compared to the conventional method in both full and quadrant arch situations. Trial Registry This clinical trial was registered on 06/07/2022 in the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry database, the number for the registry is PACTR202207648490275.
Nine individuals with complete natural dentition were enrolled in this study. Each participant received digital scans, conventional impressions, and static interocclusal records according to the following groups: group DF, full arch digital scans and bilateral buccal scans with Medit i700 intraoral scanner (IOS); group DQ, quadrant arch digital scans and unilateral buccal scans with Medit i700 IOS; group CF, full arch polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impressions and PVS interocclusal records; group CQ, quadrant arch PVS impressions and PVS interocclusal records. For group CF and group CQ, the impressions were poured, mounted with the silicone bites, scanned with a laboratory scanner, and articulated virtually with buccal scans with the laboratory scanner. In each group, each participant received three interocclusal records to repeat the virtual articulation three times and the articulated models were saved as STL files. The STL files were imported into a 3D-processing software to calculate the discrepancies between repeated measures using best-fit-alignment method. The significance between the study groups was calculated with two-tailed paired t-test at P < 0.05.
For full arch, group DF showed significantly better precision with a mean value of 31 ± 19 µm compared to 204 ± 81 µm for group CF (P = 0.0003). Similarly, for quadrant arch, group DQ showed significantly better precision with a mean value of 18 ± 6 µm compared to 255 ± 136 µm for group CQ (P = 0.0009). No significant difference in precision was found between quadrant arch and full arch when the digital or the conventional method was used.
The digital approach had significantly better precision for static interocclusal registration compared to the conventional method in both full and quadrant arch situations. Trial Registry This clinical trial was registered on 06/07/2022 in the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry database, the number for the registry is PACTR202207648490275.
摘要：
缺乏比较数字和常规记录对静态咬合间配准的准确性的临床研究。因此,这项临床研究的目的是评估全足弓和象限足弓条件下数字咬合间配准与传统配准相比的精度。
本研究招募了9名具有完全自然牙列的个体。每个参与者都接受了数字扫描，传统印象,并根据以下组进行静态咬合记录：DF组，使用Mediti700口内扫描仪（IOS）进行全足弓数字扫描和双侧颊扫描；DQ组，使用Mediti700IOS进行象限拱数字扫描和单侧颊扫描；CF组，全弓聚乙烯基硅氧烷(PVS)印象和PVS咬合记录；CQ组，象限弓PVS印象和PVS咬合间记录。对于CF组和CQ组，留下的印象，用硅胶咬合安装，用实验室扫描仪扫描，并与实验室扫描仪的口腔扫描几乎相连。在每一组中,每位参与者接受3个咬合间记录,重复虚拟关节3次,关节模型保存为STL文件.将STL文件导入到3D处理软件中以使用最佳拟合对齐方法计算重复测量之间的差异。研究组之间的显著性用双尾配对t检验计算,P<0.05。
对于全拱，与CF组的204±81µm相比,DF组显示出明显更好的精确度,平均值为31±19µm(P=0.0003).同样，对于象限拱，与CQ组的255±136µm相比，DQ组显示出明显更好的精度，平均值为18±6µm（P=0.0009）。使用数字或常规方法时，象限弓和完整弓之间的精度没有显着差异。
在全拱和象限拱情况下，与常规方法相比，数字方法在静态咬合间配准方面具有更好的精度。本临床试验于2022年7月6日在泛非临床试验注册数据库中注册。注册表的编号是PACTR202207648490275。
本研究招募了9名具有完全自然牙列的个体。每个参与者都接受了数字扫描，传统印象,并根据以下组进行静态咬合记录：DF组，使用Mediti700口内扫描仪（IOS）进行全足弓数字扫描和双侧颊扫描；DQ组，使用Mediti700IOS进行象限拱数字扫描和单侧颊扫描；CF组，全弓聚乙烯基硅氧烷(PVS)印象和PVS咬合记录；CQ组，象限弓PVS印象和PVS咬合间记录。对于CF组和CQ组，留下的印象，用硅胶咬合安装，用实验室扫描仪扫描，并与实验室扫描仪的口腔扫描几乎相连。在每一组中,每位参与者接受3个咬合间记录,重复虚拟关节3次,关节模型保存为STL文件.将STL文件导入到3D处理软件中以使用最佳拟合对齐方法计算重复测量之间的差异。研究组之间的显著性用双尾配对t检验计算,P<0.05。
对于全拱，与CF组的204±81µm相比,DF组显示出明显更好的精确度,平均值为31±19µm(P=0.0003).同样，对于象限拱，与CQ组的255±136µm相比，DQ组显示出明显更好的精度，平均值为18±6µm（P=0.0009）。使用数字或常规方法时，象限弓和完整弓之间的精度没有显着差异。
在全拱和象限拱情况下，与常规方法相比，数字方法在静态咬合间配准方面具有更好的精度。本临床试验于2022年7月6日在泛非临床试验注册数据库中注册。注册表的编号是PACTR202207648490275。
