Tüm dişleri mevcut hastalarda konvansiyonel ölçü ve intraoral dijital taramanın netliğinin karşılaştırılması

Year 2020, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 72 - 80, 01.04.2020

İmadettin Alsayed Yılmaz Umut Aslan

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.639495

Abstract

Amaç: Son senelerde, direkt dijitalizasyon için farklı intraoral tarama sistemleri ortaya çıkmıştır. Ancak bu tarayıcılarının netliği değişkendir ve hakkındaki bilgiler yetersizdir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, iki farklı intraoral tarama sisteminin, alt ve üst çene arasındaki netliğinin farkının karşılaştırılmasıdır.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: 10 adet eksik dişi bulunmayan hastanın her birinden bir adet PVS (Elite HD+, Zhermack SpA, Italy) materyali ile ölçü alındı, ve 3 adet alt-üst çene taraması CEREC OC(Sirona Dental Systems, Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) ve Straumann CARES IOS (Intra oral Scanner, Basel, Switzerland) ile yapıldı. Konvansiyonel ölçü döküldü ve elde edilen alçı model taratılarak referans model olarak netlik ve doğruluk kıyaslamasında kullanıldı. Netlik değerlendirilmesindeki deviasyonlar diğer ölçülerin birbiri üzerine çakıştırılması metodu ile gözlemlendi. Dijital ölçü dosyaları STL formatına dönüştürülerek (Geomagic Control; 3D Systems. USA) ile işlendi ve  analiz edildi.

Bulgular: Doğruluk değerleri , CEREC OC için üst çene 99.88±42.56 alt çene için, 82.6±26.81 μm. CARES IOS için üst çene için 105.53±25.49 μm, alt çene için 109.56±36.84 μm dur. Iki sistem arasındaki fark istatiksel olarak anlamlı değildir (P>0.05). Netliğin farkı istatiksel olarak anlamalıdır (P<0.05), CEREC OC alt ve üst çenede daha yüksek değerler gösterdi.

Sonuç: CEREC OC netlik olarak CARES IOS sisteminden daha üstün bulunurken, doğruluk seviyesi her iki sistemde de benzerdir. Alt ve üst çeneler arasında her iki sistemde  istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmamıştır.

Anahtar kelimeler: Intraoral tarama, STL, doğruluk, CAD/CAM

Keywords

Intraoral tarama, STL, doğruluk, CAD/CAM

Comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scanning systems with conventional impression in dentate patient

Abstract

Background: Over the last years, different intraoral scanning systems for direct digitalization have been introduced to the dental market. However, the accuracy of these scanners is variable, and little information is available. The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the accuracy of two intraoral scanning systems and the difference between upper and lower jaw on the accuracy.

Methods:10 patients with full dentition received one conventional impression with polyvinyl siloxane(Elite HD+, Zhermack SpA, Italy)and three scans with CEREC OC (Sirona Dental Systems, Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) and Straumann CARES IOS (Intra oral Scanner, Basel, Switzerland)for upper and lower jaw. The conventional impresions were poured and the casts made from it were scanned and used as the reference model  to evaluate precision and trueness of intraoral scanning virtual models provided by each system. Digital models were analyzed with a software (Geomagic Control;Geomagic, Morrisville,USA).

Results:The trueness value was 99.88±42.56μmin upper jaw and 82.6±26.81 μmin lower jaw for CEREC OC, and 105.53±25.49 μmin upper jaw,and 109.56±36.84 μmin lower jaw for CARES IOS. The differences between two systems were not statistically significant (P>0.05), but statistically significant difference was found in the precision (P<0.05). CEREC OC showed higher value in both upper and lowerjaws.

Conclusion:CEREC OC was more precise than CARES IOS and at the similar level of trueness. No statistically significant difference was found between upper and lower jaws in both systems.

Key Words: Intraoral scanning, STL, Accuracy, CAD/CAM

Keywords

Intraoral scanning, STL, Accuracy, CAD/CAM

References

• 1. Hamalian TA, Nasr E, Chidiac JJ. Impression materials in fixed prosthodontics: influence of choice on clinical procedure. J Prosthodont. 2011;20:153-160.
• 2. Wadhwani CP, Johnson GH, Lepe X, Raigrodski AJ. Accuracy of newly formulated fast-setting elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;93:530-539.
• 3. Aslan YU, Ozkan Y2. Comparing volumetric dimensional stability and accuracy of newly formulated polyvinyl siloxanether, polyvinyl siloxane and polyether impression materials using micro-computed tomography. Clin Exp Health Sci. 2019;9:94-100
• 4. Galhano GA, Pellizzer EP, Mazaro JV. Optical impression systems for CAD-CAM restorations. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23:575-579.
• 5. Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009;140:1301-1304.
• 6. 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. Mormann WH. The evolution of the CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137:7-13.
• 8. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent. 2010;38:553-559.
• 9. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17:1759-1764.
• 10. Güth JF, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Invest. 2016;21:1445-1455.
• 11. Vecsei B, Joós-Kovács G, Borbely J, Hermann P. Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems – An in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res. 2016;61:177-184.
• 12. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115:313-320.
• 13. Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144:471-478.
• 14. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A,Kessler R, Lauer A. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118:36-42.
• 15. Gan N, Xiong Y, Jiao T. Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impressions for Whole Upper Jaws, Including Full Dentitions and Palatal Soft Tissues. Plos One. 2016;11:1-15