Ağız İçi Tarayıcıların Farklı Restorasyon Tasarımlarının Tarama Doğruluğuna Etkisi

Year 2024, Volume: 13 Issue: 1, 27 - 32, 26.01.2024

Münir Demirel , Almira Ada Diken Türksayar , Mustafa Borga Dönmez

https://doi.org/10.54617/adoklinikbilimler.1339299

Abstract

Amaç: Bu in vitro çalışmanın amacı, farklı preparasyon geometrilerinde kullanılan intraoral scannerın doğruluk ve hassasiyet üzerine etkisini değerlendirmektir.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmada inlay, onlay ve tam kron preparasyon dizaynlarına ait 3 ayrı dental model kullanılmıştır. Referans taramalar bir endüstriyel tipte tarayıcı (ATOS Core 80, GOM) ile gerçekleştirilirken, sırasıyla şu ağıziçi tarayıcılar ile her model 10’ar kez taranmıştır: Trios 4 (3Shape), Trios 3 (3Shape), Primescan (Dentsplay Sirona), Omnicam (Dentsplay Sirona), Planmeca Emerald (Planmeca), Medit i700 (Medit Corp). Tüm tarama verileri STL formatına dönüştürülerek kaydedildi. Daha sonra veriler 3D görüntü işleme yazılımında (Geomagic Control X 2020.1) çakıştırılarak doğruluk ve hassasiyet değerleri hesaplandı. Shapiro Wilk, iki yönlü ANOVA ve post hoc Tukey testleri istatistiksel analiz için kullanıldı.
Bulgular: Doğruluk analizinde, hem preparasyon geometrisinin, hem de kullanılan ağız içi tarayıcının etkili olduğu görüldü. En yüksek doğruluk değerleri tam kron dizaynında ve Medit i700 ile elde edildi. Hassasiyet analizinde ise Trios 4 hariç tüm ağız içi tarayıcılarda tam kron preparasyonun hassasiyet değerleri daha yüksek bulunurken, tarayıcılar arasında anlamlı fark bulunmadı.
Sonuç: Kompleks geometrilere sahip preparasyonlarda doğruluk ve hassasiyetin, kullanılan ağız içi tarayıcıya da bağlı olarak azalabileceği göz önünde bulundurmalıdır.

Keywords

ağıziçi tarayıcılar, preparasyon dizaynı, dijital diş hekimliği

Effect Of Intraoral Scanner On The Scan Accuracy Of Different Restoration Designs

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of intraoral scanner used in different preparation geometries on trueness and precision.
Materials and Methods: Three different dental models of inlay, onlay and full crown preparation designs were used in the study. Reference scans were performed with an industrial-grade scanner (ATOS Core 80, GOM), while each model was scanned 10 times with the following intraoral scanners, respectively: Trios 4 (3Shape), Trios 3 (3Shape), Primescan (Dentsplay Sirona), Omnicam (Dentsplay) Sirona), Planmeca Emerald (Planmeca), Medit i700 (Medit Corp). All scan data were converted to STL file and saved. Then, the data were recorded in the 3D image processing software (Geomagic Control X 2020.1) and the accuracy and precision values were calculated. Shapiro Wilk, two-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests were performed for statistical analysis.
Results: Both the geometry of the preparation and the intraoral scanner used were found to be effective in the accuracy analysis. The highest accuracy values were obtained in the full crown design and with the Medit i700. The precision values of the full crown preparation were found to be higher in all intraoral scanners except Trios 4, but there was no significant difference between the scanners.
Conclusion: It should be considered that the accuracy and sensitivity of the preparations with complex geometries may decrease depending on the intraoral scanner used.

Keywords

intraoral scanner, preparation design, digital dentistry, accuracy

References

• Referans1. Cervino G, Fiorillo L, Arzukanyan AV, Spagnuolo G, Cicciu M. Dental Restorative Digital Workflow: Digital Smile Design from Aesthetic to Function. Dent J (Basel) 2019;7:30-42.
• Referans2. Revilla-Leon M, Young K, Sicilia E, Cho SH, Kois JC. Influence of definitive and interim restorative materials and surface finishing on the scanning accuracy of an intraoral scanner. J Dent 2022;120:104114.
• Referans3. Kim JH, Son SA, Lee H, Yoo YJ, Hong SJ, Park JK. Influence of adjacent teeth on the accuracy of intraoral scanning systems for class II inlay preparation. J Esthet Restor Dent 2022;34:826-32.
• Referans4. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:10-7.
• Referans5. Papadiochou S, Pissiotis AL. Marginal adaptation and CADCAM technology: A systematic review of restorative material and fabrication techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:545-51.
• Referans6. Peroz S, Spies BC, Adali U, Beuer F, Wesemann C. Measured accuracy of intraoral scanners is highly dependent on methodical factors. J Prosthodont Res 2022;66:318-25.
• Referans7. Abduo J, Laskey D. Effect of preparation type on the accuracy of different intraoral scanners: An in vitro study at different levels of accuracy evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent 2022;34:1221-29.
• Referans8. Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review of Influencing Factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018;26:101-21.
• Referans9. Kernen F, Schlager S, Seidel Alvarez V, Mehrhof J, Vach K, Kohal R, et al. Accuracy of intraoral scans: An in vivo study of different scanning devices. J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:1303-09.
• Referans10. ISO 5725-1; Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of Measurement Methods and Results—Part 1: General Principles and Definitions.International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1994.
• Referans11. Donmez MB, Mathey A, Gaumann F, Mathey A, Yilmaz B, Abou-Ayash S. Effect of intraoral scanner and fixed partial denture situation on the scan accuracy of multiple implants: An in vitro study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2023;25:502-10.
• Referans12. Michelinakis G, Apostolakis D, Tsagarakis A, Lampropoulos P. Influence of different material substrates on the accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: A single-blinded in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 2022;35:82-93.
• Referans13. Pattamavilai S, Ongthiemsak C. Accuracy of intraoral scanners in different complete arch scan patterns. J Prosthet Dent 2022: S0022391300046-4.
• Referans14. Flugge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:374-92.
• Referans15. Diker B, Tak O. Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained Using Six Intraoral Scanners in Partially Edentulous Dentitions and the Effect of Scanning Sequence. Int J Prosthodont 2021;34:101-08.
• Referans16. Ashraf Y, Sabet A, Hamdy A, Ebeid K. Influence of Preparation Type and Tooth Geometry on the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners. J Prosthodont 2020;29:800-4.
• Referans17. Oh KC, Park JM, Moon HS. Effects of Scanning Strategy and Scanner Type on the Accuracy of Intraoral Scans: A New Approach for Assessing the Accuracy of Scanned Data. J Prosthodont 2020;29:518-23.
• Referans18. Bernauer SA, Muller J, Zitzmann NU, Joda T. Influence of Preparation Design, Marginal Gingiva Location, and Tooth Morphology on the Accuracy of Digital Impressions for Full-Crown Restorations: An In Vitro Investigation. J Clin Med 2020;9:3984.
• Referans19. Chiu A, Chen YW, Hayashi J, Sadr A. Accuracy of CAD/CAM Digital Impressions with Different Intraoral Scanner Parameters. Sensors (Basel) 2020;20:1157.
• Referans20. Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P, Wostmann B. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:2027-34.
• Referans21. Khaled M, Sabet A, Ebeid K, Salah T. Effect of Different Preparation Depths for an Inlay-Retained Fixed Partial Denture on the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study. J Prosthodont 2022;31:601-5.
• Referans22. de Andrade GS, Luz JN, Tribst JPM, Chun EP, Bressane A, Borges ALS, et al. Impact of different complete coverage onlay preparation designs and the intraoral scanner on the accuracy of digital scans. J Prosthet Dent 2022; S0022-391300278-5.
• Referans23. Kim JH, Son SA, Lee H, Kim RJ, Park JK. In vitro analysis of intraoral digital impression of inlay preparation according to tooth location and cavity type. J Prosthodont Res 2021;65:400-6.
• Referans24. Carbajal Mejia JB, Wakabayashi K, Nakamura T, Yatani H. Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:392-99.
• Referans25. Keeling A, Wu J, Ferrari M. Confounding factors affecting the marginal quality of an intra-oral scan. J Dent 2017;59:33-40.
• Referans26. Dutton E, Ludlow M, Mennito A, Kelly A, Evans Z, Culp A, et al. The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners. J Esthet Restor Dent 2020;32:204-18.
• Referans27. Schimmel M, Akino N, Srinivasan M, Wittneben JG, Yilmaz B, Abou-Ayash S. Accuracy of intraoral scanning in completely and partially edentulous maxillary and mandibular jaws: an in vitro analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2021;25:1839-47.
• Referans28. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 2015;46:9-17.
• Referans29. Latham J, Ludlow M, Mennito A, Kelly A, Evans Z, Renne W. Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123:85-95.
• Referans30. Di Fiore A, Meneghello R, Graiff L, Savio G, Vigolo P, Monaco C, et al. Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res 2019;63:396-403.