Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: This study conducted a comprehensive comparative analysis of three intraoral scanners (CEREC Primescan, TRIOS, CEREC Omnicam) and a lab scanner (inEosX5) assessing their precision in simulating subgingival tooth preparations.
METHODS: Utilizing a dental simulation mannequin with a 3D-printed resin structure, 100 structures with depths ranging from 0.5 to 4.0 mm were created within a square mimicking a rectangular tank surface. Four scanner groups (A-D) and five subgroups were established. Two digitization methods, a customized parallelometer and an intraoral simulation, were applied, ensuring a standardized scanning sequence. Trueness was evaluated by comparing CAD-calculated surface areas with actual dimensions, and qualitative trueness analysis was conducted using MeshLab. Surface areas were computed using the formula SA = 2lw + 2lh + 2wh. Statistical analyses, including Pearson\'s correlation coefficient, Kolmogorov-Smirnoff and Levene\'s tests, three-way ANOVA, and paired sample t-tests, elucidated relationships and differences (a=0.05).
RESULTS: A robust correlation (r = 0.850, p < 0.001) between intraoral scanner choice and scanned area depth was found. Inverse correlations were noted for experimental methods. Three-way ANOVA demonstrated significant scanner-depth interaction (F(12,760) = 760.801, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Emphasizing high-resolution sensors and advanced technologies, the study underscores the optimal choice for subgingival digitization, acknowledging variations among scanners.
METHODS: Utilizing a dental simulation mannequin with a 3D-printed resin structure, 100 structures with depths ranging from 0.5 to 4.0 mm were created within a square mimicking a rectangular tank surface. Four scanner groups (A-D) and five subgroups were established. Two digitization methods, a customized parallelometer and an intraoral simulation, were applied, ensuring a standardized scanning sequence. Trueness was evaluated by comparing CAD-calculated surface areas with actual dimensions, and qualitative trueness analysis was conducted using MeshLab. Surface areas were computed using the formula SA = 2lw + 2lh + 2wh. Statistical analyses, including Pearson\'s correlation coefficient, Kolmogorov-Smirnoff and Levene\'s tests, three-way ANOVA, and paired sample t-tests, elucidated relationships and differences (a=0.05).
RESULTS: A robust correlation (r = 0.850, p < 0.001) between intraoral scanner choice and scanned area depth was found. Inverse correlations were noted for experimental methods. Three-way ANOVA demonstrated significant scanner-depth interaction (F(12,760) = 760.801, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Emphasizing high-resolution sensors and advanced technologies, the study underscores the optimal choice for subgingival digitization, acknowledging variations among scanners.
摘要：
目的：本研究对三种口内扫描仪（CERECPrimescan，TRIOS,CERECOmnicam）和实验室扫描仪（inEosX5）评估其模拟龈下牙齿准备的精度。
方法：利用3D打印树脂结构的牙科仿真人体模型，在模仿矩形罐表面的正方形内创建100个深度范围为0.5至4.0mm的结构。建立了四个扫描仪组（A-D）和五个亚组。两种数字化方法，定制的平行计和口内模拟，被应用，确保标准化的扫描顺序。通过将CAD计算的表面积与实际尺寸进行比较来评估真实性。使用MeshLab进行定性真实性分析。使用公式SA=2lw+2lh+2wh计算表面积。统计分析，包括皮尔逊相关系数，Kolmogorov-Smirnoff和Levene的测试,三因素方差分析,和配对样本t检验，阐明了关系和差异（a=0.05）。
结果：发现了口内扫描仪选择与扫描区域深度之间的强相关性（r=0.850，p<0.001）。在实验方法中注意到了逆相关。三因素方差分析显示出显著的扫描仪-深度相互作用(F(12,760)=760.801,p<0.001)。
结论：强调高分辨率传感器和先进技术，这项研究强调了龈下数字化的最佳选择，承认扫描仪之间的差异。
方法：利用3D打印树脂结构的牙科仿真人体模型，在模仿矩形罐表面的正方形内创建100个深度范围为0.5至4.0mm的结构。建立了四个扫描仪组（A-D）和五个亚组。两种数字化方法，定制的平行计和口内模拟，被应用，确保标准化的扫描顺序。通过将CAD计算的表面积与实际尺寸进行比较来评估真实性。使用MeshLab进行定性真实性分析。使用公式SA=2lw+2lh+2wh计算表面积。统计分析，包括皮尔逊相关系数，Kolmogorov-Smirnoff和Levene的测试,三因素方差分析,和配对样本t检验，阐明了关系和差异（a=0.05）。
结果：发现了口内扫描仪选择与扫描区域深度之间的强相关性（r=0.850，p<0.001）。在实验方法中注意到了逆相关。三因素方差分析显示出显著的扫描仪-深度相互作用(F(12,760)=760.801,p<0.001)。
结论：强调高分辨率传感器和先进技术，这项研究强调了龈下数字化的最佳选择，承认扫描仪之间的差异。
