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.
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。