Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of a partially digital cross-mounting workflow of direct scans of interocclusal records to a conventional workflow by analyzing the deviations of sequentially cross-mounted casts.
METHODS: A set of reference casts, comprising maxillary and mandibular full-arch prepared casts and interim prostheses, was articulated, mounted, and scanned to generate four reference casts for cross-mounting. In the conventional approach, 15 sets of these four casts were printed. Polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) records were made using the reference casts and utilized for sequential cross-mounting. In the partially digital group, the same PVS interocclusal records were scanned and used for digital cross-mounting via design software. The mean deviations of both groups from the reference cast were analyzed using a 3D inspection software program. Statistical tests, including paired t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA), were conducted to compare the average discrepancies between the two groups and to evaluate discrepancies in the anterior and posterior regions (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: The range of discrepancies was similar in both the conventional and partially digital groups. The final set of related casts had a mean deviation of 201.58 ± 136.98 mm in the conventional workflow and 248.69 ± 164.71 mm in the partially digital workflow. No statistically significant difference was found between conventional and partially digital groups (p = 0.091). Error propagation was examined by comparing discrepancies at each step within the cross-mounting process. In the conventional group, no significant difference was found (p = 0.148), but a significant difference was found among groups in the partially digital group at each step of sequential mounting (p < 0.001). A significant difference was observed between anterior and posterior deviations in the partially digital group (p < 0.001), but not in the conventional group (p = 0.143).
CONCLUSIONS: The study reveals that there is no statistically significant difference between conventional and partially digital cross-mounting workflows. However, within the partially digital group, a significant difference in deviation emerges across cross-mounting steps, with increased deviation in the anterior region.
METHODS: A set of reference casts, comprising maxillary and mandibular full-arch prepared casts and interim prostheses, was articulated, mounted, and scanned to generate four reference casts for cross-mounting. In the conventional approach, 15 sets of these four casts were printed. Polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) records were made using the reference casts and utilized for sequential cross-mounting. In the partially digital group, the same PVS interocclusal records were scanned and used for digital cross-mounting via design software. The mean deviations of both groups from the reference cast were analyzed using a 3D inspection software program. Statistical tests, including paired t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA), were conducted to compare the average discrepancies between the two groups and to evaluate discrepancies in the anterior and posterior regions (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: The range of discrepancies was similar in both the conventional and partially digital groups. The final set of related casts had a mean deviation of 201.58 ± 136.98 mm in the conventional workflow and 248.69 ± 164.71 mm in the partially digital workflow. No statistically significant difference was found between conventional and partially digital groups (p = 0.091). Error propagation was examined by comparing discrepancies at each step within the cross-mounting process. In the conventional group, no significant difference was found (p = 0.148), but a significant difference was found among groups in the partially digital group at each step of sequential mounting (p < 0.001). A significant difference was observed between anterior and posterior deviations in the partially digital group (p < 0.001), but not in the conventional group (p = 0.143).
CONCLUSIONS: The study reveals that there is no statistically significant difference between conventional and partially digital cross-mounting workflows. However, within the partially digital group, a significant difference in deviation emerges across cross-mounting steps, with increased deviation in the anterior region.
摘要：
目的：通过分析顺序交叉安装铸模的偏差，将直接扫描咬合间记录的部分数字交叉安装工作流程与常规工作流程的准确性进行比较。
方法：一组参考转换，包括上颌和下颌全弓准备的铸模和临时假体，被明确表达，已安装,并扫描以生成四个用于交叉安装的参考模型。在传统方法中，打印了15套这四个模型。聚乙烯硅氧烷（PVS）记录使用参考铸件制作，并用于顺序交叉安装。在部分数字组中，扫描相同的PVS咬合间记录,并通过设计软件用于数字交叉安装.使用3D检查软件程序分析两组与参考铸件的平均偏差。统计检验,包括配对t检验和方差分析(ANOVA)，进行比较两组之间的平均差异，并评估前后区域的差异（α=0.05）。
结果：常规组和部分数字组的差异范围相似。最终一组相关模型在常规工作流程中的平均偏差为201.58±136.98mm，在部分数字工作流程中的平均偏差为248.69±164.71mm。常规组和部分数字组之间无统计学差异（p=0.091）。通过比较交叉安装过程中每个步骤的差异来检查误差传播。在常规组中,没有发现显著差异(p=0.148)，但在连续安装的每个步骤中，部分数字组的组之间存在显着差异（p<0.001）。在部分数字组的前后偏离之间观察到显着差异（p<0.001），但不是在常规组（p=0.143）。
结论：研究表明，常规和部分数字交叉安装工作流程之间没有统计学上的显着差异。然而,在部分数字组中，在交叉安装步骤中出现了显著的偏差差异，前部区域的偏差增加。
方法：一组参考转换，包括上颌和下颌全弓准备的铸模和临时假体，被明确表达，已安装,并扫描以生成四个用于交叉安装的参考模型。在传统方法中，打印了15套这四个模型。聚乙烯硅氧烷（PVS）记录使用参考铸件制作，并用于顺序交叉安装。在部分数字组中，扫描相同的PVS咬合间记录,并通过设计软件用于数字交叉安装.使用3D检查软件程序分析两组与参考铸件的平均偏差。统计检验,包括配对t检验和方差分析(ANOVA)，进行比较两组之间的平均差异，并评估前后区域的差异（α=0.05）。
结果：常规组和部分数字组的差异范围相似。最终一组相关模型在常规工作流程中的平均偏差为201.58±136.98mm，在部分数字工作流程中的平均偏差为248.69±164.71mm。常规组和部分数字组之间无统计学差异（p=0.091）。通过比较交叉安装过程中每个步骤的差异来检查误差传播。在常规组中,没有发现显著差异(p=0.148)，但在连续安装的每个步骤中，部分数字组的组之间存在显着差异（p<0.001）。在部分数字组的前后偏离之间观察到显着差异（p<0.001），但不是在常规组（p=0.143）。
结论：研究表明，常规和部分数字交叉安装工作流程之间没有统计学上的显着差异。然而,在部分数字组中，在交叉安装步骤中出现了显著的偏差差异，前部区域的偏差增加。
