Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the trueness of dental arches digitised by two intraoral scanning (IOS) technologies from patients presenting crowding, diastema, and bilateral posterior edentulous space with tilted molar.
METHODS: Conventional impressions and dental stone models were generated from three patients presenting the aforementioned dental arch conditions. These models were digitised on a desktop scanner, and the resulting mesh was used as reference. Subsequently, the patients were scanned using confocal based (CF; iTero Element 2) and blue laser-multiscan (BLM; Virtuo Vivo) imaging IOS technology, totalling thirty scans. The meshes from the scans were exported in Standard Tessellation Language format and analysed using Geomagic Control X software. Root mean square (RMS) indicated deviation magnitude. Differences in IOS technologies were evaluated with paired t-tests, and dental arch conditions compared using ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests (α=0.05).
RESULTS: Digital dental arch from blue laser-multiscan technology showed lower trueness compared to confocal based technology for crowding (p = 0.0084) and edentulous spaces (p = 0.0025) conditions. When the types of oral condition were compared, discrepancies were significantly different for both IOS technologies, featuring the arch with diastema showing the lowest trueness, followed by edentulous spaces and crowding.
CONCLUSIONS: Dental arches presenting crowding and edentulous spaces digitised by blue laser-multiscan technology exhibited greater discrepancies compared to confocal based imaging technology. Furthermore, trueness varied among the dental arch conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: The IOS technology and patient\'s dental arch condition can influence the trueness of dental arch digitisation. Being aware of these effects allows clinicians to take them into account during scanning procedures, digital planning and manufacturing.
METHODS: Conventional impressions and dental stone models were generated from three patients presenting the aforementioned dental arch conditions. These models were digitised on a desktop scanner, and the resulting mesh was used as reference. Subsequently, the patients were scanned using confocal based (CF; iTero Element 2) and blue laser-multiscan (BLM; Virtuo Vivo) imaging IOS technology, totalling thirty scans. The meshes from the scans were exported in Standard Tessellation Language format and analysed using Geomagic Control X software. Root mean square (RMS) indicated deviation magnitude. Differences in IOS technologies were evaluated with paired t-tests, and dental arch conditions compared using ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests (α=0.05).
RESULTS: Digital dental arch from blue laser-multiscan technology showed lower trueness compared to confocal based technology for crowding (p = 0.0084) and edentulous spaces (p = 0.0025) conditions. When the types of oral condition were compared, discrepancies were significantly different for both IOS technologies, featuring the arch with diastema showing the lowest trueness, followed by edentulous spaces and crowding.
CONCLUSIONS: Dental arches presenting crowding and edentulous spaces digitised by blue laser-multiscan technology exhibited greater discrepancies compared to confocal based imaging technology. Furthermore, trueness varied among the dental arch conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: The IOS technology and patient\'s dental arch condition can influence the trueness of dental arch digitisation. Being aware of these effects allows clinicians to take them into account during scanning procedures, digital planning and manufacturing.
摘要：
目的：为了评估通过两种口内扫描（IOS）技术从出现拥挤的患者中数字化的牙弓的真实性，舒张，和双侧后缺牙间隙，磨牙倾斜。
方法：常规印模和牙石模型是由3名出现上述牙弓状况的患者制作的。这些模型在桌面扫描仪上数字化，并将生成的网格用作参考。随后，患者使用共聚焦（CF;iTeroElement2）和蓝色激光多扫描（BLM;VirteoVivo）成像IOS技术进行扫描，共30次扫描。以标准镶嵌语言格式导出来自扫描的网格,并用Geomagic控制X软件进行分析。均方根(RMS)表示偏差大小。IOS技术的差异用配对t检验进行了评估，使用方差分析和事后Tukey检验比较牙弓状况(α=0.05)。
结果：与基于共聚焦技术的拥挤（p=0.0084）和无牙空间（p=0.0025）相比，来自蓝色激光多扫描的数字牙弓显示出较低的准确性。当比较口腔疾病的类型时，两种IOS技术的差异显著不同，带有舒张的拱门显示出最低的真实性，其次是无齿的空间和拥挤。
结论：与基于共聚焦的成像技术相比，通过蓝色激光多扫描数字化呈现拥挤和无牙空间的牙弓表现出更大的差异。此外，牙弓状况的真实性各不相同。
结论：IOS技术和患者的牙弓状况会影响牙弓数字化的真实性。意识到这些影响可以让临床医生在扫描过程中考虑到这些影响，数字化规划和制造。
方法：常规印模和牙石模型是由3名出现上述牙弓状况的患者制作的。这些模型在桌面扫描仪上数字化，并将生成的网格用作参考。随后，患者使用共聚焦（CF;iTeroElement2）和蓝色激光多扫描（BLM;VirteoVivo）成像IOS技术进行扫描，共30次扫描。以标准镶嵌语言格式导出来自扫描的网格,并用Geomagic控制X软件进行分析。均方根(RMS)表示偏差大小。IOS技术的差异用配对t检验进行了评估，使用方差分析和事后Tukey检验比较牙弓状况(α=0.05)。
结果：与基于共聚焦技术的拥挤（p=0.0084）和无牙空间（p=0.0025）相比，来自蓝色激光多扫描的数字牙弓显示出较低的准确性。当比较口腔疾病的类型时，两种IOS技术的差异显著不同，带有舒张的拱门显示出最低的真实性，其次是无齿的空间和拥挤。
结论：与基于共聚焦的成像技术相比，通过蓝色激光多扫描数字化呈现拥挤和无牙空间的牙弓表现出更大的差异。此外，牙弓状况的真实性各不相同。
结论：IOS技术和患者的牙弓状况会影响牙弓数字化的真实性。意识到这些影响可以让临床医生在扫描过程中考虑到这些影响，数字化规划和制造。
