대한치과보철학회지 (The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics)

  • 제58권4호
  • /
  • Pages.282-289
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 0301-2875(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-3789(eISSN)
대한치과보철학회 (The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

엔도크라운 디지털 인상을 위한 구강스캐너 3종의 정확도 평가: 실험실 연구

Evaluation of the accuracy of three different intraoral scanners for endocrown digital impression: An in vitro study

  • ;
  • 박지만 (연세대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • ;
  • Ural, Cagri (Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayis University) ;
  • Park, Ji-Man (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kaleli, Necati (Department of Dentistry Services, Vocational School of Health Services, Ondokuz Mayis University) ;
  • Caglayan, Esma (Oral and Dental Health Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2020.04.13
  • 심사 : 2020.08.06
  • 발행 : 2020.10.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

목적:본 연구의 목표는 다른 유형의 엔도크라운(endocrown) 와동 형태를 세 가지 다른 구강스캐너로 디지털 인상을 채득하였을 때의 정확성을 평가하는 것이다. 재료 및 방법: 두 개의 인체 하악 대구치를 협측벽이 있는 것(Class 2)과 협측벽이 없는(Class 3), 두 가지 엔도크라운 지대주 디자인으로 치아형성 하였다. 와동 디자인 2종을 레퍼런스로 탁상용 스캐너(E3, 3shape)와 세 개의 다른 구강스캐너, Trios 3 (3shape, TRI group), Cerec Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona, CER group), i500 (Medit Corp., I5 group)로 스캔하였다. 표준 테셀레이션 언어(.stl) 데이터 세트를 얻어, 계측 소프트웨어에서 불러들였다. 각 구강스캐너로 획득한 반복된 스캔 데이터 사이의 편차에 기초하여 정밀도(precision)를 평가하였다. 기준 데이터와 반복하여 얻은 구강스캔 사이의 편차로서 진도(trueness)를 평가 하였다. 상호작용을 탐지하기 위해 데이터는 일변량 분산분석(ANOVA)을 사용하여 통계적으로 분석하였고, 실험군의 비교 분석을 위해 데이터는 .05의 유의 수준에서 일원 분산분석 및 사후 Tukey 테스트로 분석하였다. 결과: I5 군의 두 와동 형태에 대한 편차값은 진도의 측면에서 다른 구강스캐너 군에 비해 낮았다. 두 와동 디자인 모두에서 TRI 군은 다른 구강스캐너군 보다 우수한 정밀도를 보였다. 결론: 구강스캐너의 다양한 기술과 다양한 엔도크라운 치아형성 디자인이 디지털 스캔의 정확도에 영향을 미쳤다.

Purpose: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of three different intraoral scanners (IOSs) on digital impressions of different types of endocrown cavity preparations. Materials and methods: Two human mandibular molar teeth were prepared with different endocrown abutment designs: one with a buccal wall (Class 2) and the other without a buccal wall (Class 3). Both cavity designs were scanned using a reference desktop scanner (E3) and three different intraoral scanners: Trios3 (TRI group), Cerec Omnicam (CER group), and i500 (I5 group). The obtained Standard Tessellation Language (.stl) datasets were exported to metrology software. The precision was evaluated based on deviations among repeated scan models recorded by each IOS. The trueness was evaluated based on deviations between the reference data and repeated scans. For detecting interaction, data were statistically analyzed using a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) and for analyzing the comparison of the test groups data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey test at the significance level of .05. Results: The deviation values for both cavity designs in the I5 group were significantly lower than those in the other IOS groups in terms of trueness. For both cavity designs, the TRI group exhibited better precision than the other IOS groups. Conclusion: Different technologies of IOS device's and different endocrown prepration designs affected the accuracy of the digital scans.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Hasanzade M, Sahebi M, Zarrati S, Payaminia L, Alikhasi M. Comparative evaluation of the internal and marginal adaptations of CAD/CAM endocrowns and crowns fabricated from three different materials. Int J Prosthodont 2020 Dec 19.
  2. Belleflamme MM, Geerts SO, Louwette MM, Grenade CF, Vanheusden AJ, Mainjot AK. No post-no core approach to restore severely damaged posterior teeth: An up to 10-year retrospective study of documented endocrown cases. J Dent 2017;63:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.04.009
  3. Biacchi GR, Mello B, Basting RT. The endocrown: an alternative approach for restoring extensively damaged molars. J Esthet Restor Dent 2013;25:383-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12065
  4. Bernhart J, Brauning A, Altenburger MJ, Wrbas KT. Cerec3D endocrowns--two-year clinical examination of CAD/CAM crowns for restoring endodontically treated molars. Int J Comput Dent 2010;13:141-54.
  5. Qin F, Zheng S, Luo Z, Li Y, Guo L, Zhao Y, Fua Q. Evaluation of machinability and flexural strength of a novel dental machinable glass-ceramic. J Dent 2009;37:776-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2009.06.004
  6. Zimmermann M, Valcanaia A, Neiva G, Mehl A, Fasbinder D. Three-dimensional digital evaluation of the fit of endocrowns fabricated from different CAD/CAM materials. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e504-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12770
  7. Osnes CA, Wu JH, Venezia P, Ferrari M, Keeling AJ. Full arch precision of six intraoral scanners in vitro. J Prosthodont Res 2020;64:6-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.05.005
  8. Yang X, Lv P, Liu Y, Si W, Feng H. Accuracy of digital impressions and fitness of single crowns based on digital impressions. Materials (Basel) 2015;8:3945-57. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma8073945
  9. Park JM. Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form. J Adv Prosthodont 2016;8:354-62. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.5.354
  10. Mangano F, Veronesi G. Digital versus analog procedures for the prosthetic restoration of single implants: A randomized controlled trial with 1 year of follow-up. Biomed Res Int 2018;2018:5325032. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5325032
  11. Mangano FG, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Imburgia M, Mangano C, Admakin O. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2019;19:101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-019-0792-7
  12. Muhlemann S, Kraus RD, Hammerle CHF, Thoma DS. Is the use of digital technologies for the fabrication of implantsupported reconstructions more efficient and/or more effective than conventional techniques: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:184-95.
  13. 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;118:392-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.021
  14. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Mehl A. Accuracy of completeand partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int J Comput Dent 2019;22:11-9.
  15. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1759-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0864-4
  16. Park JM, Kim RJ, Lee KW. Comparative reproducibility analysis of 6 intraoral scanners used on complex intracoronal preparations. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123:113-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.025
  17. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:313-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.011
  18. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:1687-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y
  19. Patzelt SB, Vonau S, Stampf S, Att W. Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws. J Am Dent Assoc 2013;144:914-20. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0209
  20. Ahlholm P, Sipila K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review. J Prosthodont 2018;27:35-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12527
  21. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:121-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1
  22. Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 2013;16:11-21.
  23. Haddadi Y, Bahrami G, Isidor F. Effect of software version on the accuracy of an intraoral scanning device. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31:375-6. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5781
  24. Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, Viguie G, Viennot S, Robinson P, Farges JC, Fages M, Ducret M. Intraoral scanner technologies: A review to make a successful impression. J Healthc Eng 2017;2017:8427595.
  25. Medina-Sotomayor P, Pascual-Moscardo A, Camps I. Relationship between resolution and accuracy of four intraoral scanners in complete-arch impressions. J Clin Exp Dent 2018;10:e361-6.
  26. Jeon JH, Choi BY, Kim CM, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scanned conventional impressions of prepared teeth generated with white- and blue-light scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:549-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.019