Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science (구강회복응용과학지)

Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion (대한턱관절교합학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Accuracy of bite registration according to the buccal bite scan range of intra-oral scanner

구강 스캐너의 협측 교합 스캔 부위에 따른 교합 인기의 정확도

  • Tae-sung Kwon (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Dae-hyun Kim (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Min-su Kim (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Dong-jun Song (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Joo-Hun Song (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Chosun University)
  • 권태성 (조선대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 김대현 (조선대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 김민수 (조선대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 송동준 (조선대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 송주헌 (조선대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2024.05.13
  • Accepted : 2024.06.17
  • Published : 2024.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine which scan range would provide the most accurate bite registration when performing a bite scan after scanning an upper and lower arch using an intraoral scanner. Materials and Methods: The occlusal contact points were recorded using articulating paper for 30 adults, and the results of various ranges of buccal bite scan were compared based on this. Buccal bite scan of 5 ranges (1st premolar to 2nd premolar, 1st premolar to 1st molar, 1st premolar to 2nd molar, 2nd premolar to 1st molar, and canines to another side canine of the maxillary teeth) was performed, and then the buccal bite scan file was used in a CAD program to confirm the occlusal area in the scan file through data editing and alignment, leaving the buccal area of the teeth. Afterwards, the degree of agreement between the occlusal contact points obtained from the articulating paper and the occlusal area obtained from the scan file was compared, and statistical analysis was performed using the homoscedastic T-test (α = 0.05). Results: The alignment success and alignment failure rates among each group were 77.23% and 40.85% in canine to another side canine, 68.23% and 28.89% in bilateral first premolar to second premolar, 63.76% and 29.97% in bilateral first premolar to first molar, 61.31% and 32.04% in bilateral first premolar to second molar, 67.55% and 27.46% in second premolar to first molar. The results of the anterior scan of both canines showed higher alignment success and failure rates compared to the scan results of all maxillary posterior teeth. In the alignment success rate, statistical significance was not found depending on the scan range of the posterior teeth, but in comparing the results of the posterior teeth and both canines, statistical significance was observed except for the scan results of the second premolar to the first molar. There was no statistical significance in the alignment failure rate depending on the scan range of the posterior teeth, and statistical significance was observed in the results of the posterior teeth and both canines. Conclusion: When taking a buccal bite scan, in the case of scanning the anterior teeth, more occlusal area appear than when scanning the posterior teeth, and in the case of scanning the posterior teeth, there is no significant difference in the bite registration depending on the scan range.

목적: 구강 스캐너를 이용해 상악, 하악 스캔을 시행 후 교합 스캔을 하는 과정에서 어떠한 범위를 스캔했을 때 가장 정확한 교합 인기가 되는지를 파악하고자 하였다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 성인 30명을 대상으로 교합지를 사용하여 교합점을 채득하고 이를 기준으로 다양한 범위의 협측 교합 스캔의 결과를 비교하였다. 총 5개 영역(상악 치아를 기준으로 좌우 양측의 제1소구치에서 제2소구치, 제1소구치에서 제1대구치, 제1소구치에서 제2대구치, 제2소구치에서 제1대구치, 양측 견치)의 협측 교합 스캔을 시행하였으며, 이후 협측 교합 스캔파일을 CAD 프로그램을 통해 해당하는 범위 치아의 협측 부위만 남겨두고 데이터 편집 및 정렬을 통해 스캔 파일에서 교합 되는 영역을 확인하였다. 이후 교합지로 얻어진 교합점과 스캔 파일에서 얻어진 교합 영역의 일치도를 비교하였으며, 등분산성 T-test를 통해 통계 분석하였다(α = 0.05). 결과: 각 그룹간 정렬 성공률과 정렬 실패율은 양측 견치에서는 각각 77.23%, 40.85%로 나타났고, 양측 제1소구치에서 제2소구치에서 각각 68.23%, 28.89%, 양측 제1소구치에서 제1대구치에서 63.76%, 29.97%, 양측 제1소구치에서 제2대구치에서는 61.31%, 32.04%, 그리고 양측 제2소구치에서 제1대구치는 67.55%, 27.46%로 나타났다. 양측 견치에서의 결과는 상악 모든 구치부 스캔 결과와 비교했을 때 정렬 성공률과 실패율 모두 높은 양상이 나타났다. 정렬 성공률에서 구치부를 스캔 범위에 따른 통계적 유의성은 나타나지 않았으나, 구치부와 양측 견치의 결과 비교에서는 양측 제2소구치에서 제1대구치의 스캔 결과를 제외하고 통계적 유의성이 관찰되었다. 정렬 실패율에서는 구치부 스캔 범위에 따른 통계적 유의성은 나타나지 않았고, 구치부와 양측 견치의 결과에서는 모두 통계적 유의성이 관찰되었다. 결론: 교합 협측 스캔 채득 시 전치부를 스캔할 경우 구치부를 스캔할 때보다 교합 되는 영역이 더 많이 나타나며, 구치부를 스캔할 경우 범위에 따른 교합 인기의 유의미한 차이는 나타나지 않는다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2020학년도 조선대학교 학술연구비의 지원을 받아 연구되었음.

References

  1. bin Irfan U, Aslam K, Nadim R. A review on CAD CAM in dentistry. J Pak Dent Assoc 2015;24:112-6.
  2. Abdullah AO, Muhammed FK, Zheng B, Liu Y. An Overview of Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) in Restorative Dentistry. J Dent Mater Tech 2018;7:1-10.
  3. Choi HS, Moon JE, Kim SH. The application of CAD/CAM in dentistry. J Korean Dent Assoc 2012;50:110-7. https://doi.org/10.22974/jkda.2012.50.3.001
  4. Revilla-Leon M, Frazier K, da Costa JB, Kumar P, Duong ML, Khajotia S, Urquhart O. Intraoral scanners: An american dental association clinical evaluators panel survey. J Am Dent Assoc 2021;152:669-70. e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2021.05.018
  5. Haidar ZS. Digital dentistry: Past, present, and future. DMHT. 2023(2):1-16.
  6. Angelone F, Ponsiglione AM, Ricciardi C, Cesarelli G, Sansone M, Amato F. Diagnostic applications of intraoral scanners: a systematic review. J Imaging 2023;9:134.
  7. Carneiro Pereira AL, Martins de Aquino LM, Carvalho Porto de Freitas RF, Soares Paiva Torres AC, da Fonte Porto Carreiro A. CAD/CAM-fabricated removable partial dentures: a case report. Int J Comput Dent 2019;22:371-9.
  8. Wimmer T, Gallus K, Eichberger M, Stawarczyk B. Complete denture fabrication supported by CAD/CAM. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:541-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.10.016
  9. e Bertolini MdM, Kempen J, Lourenco EJV, de Moraes Telles D. The use of CAD/CAM technology to fabricate a custom ceramic implant abutment: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111:362-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.08.016
  10. Yadav S, Narayan AI, Choudhry A, Balakrishnan D. CAD/CAM-assisted auricular prosthesis fabrication for a quick, precise, and more retentive outcome: a clinical report. J Prosthodont 2017;26:616-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12589
  11. Ting-shu S, Jian S. Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont 2015;24:313-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12218
  12. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions - an in-vitro study. Int J Comput 2011;14:11-21.
  13. Aragon ML, Pontes LF, Bichara LM, Flores-Mir C, Normando D. Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:429-34. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjw033
  14. 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
  15. Patzelt SB, Lamprinos C, Stampf S, Att W. The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. J Am Dent Assoc 2014;145:542-51. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.2014.23
  16. 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.
  17. Shopova D, Bakova D, Yordanova S, Yordanova M, Uzunov T. Digital Occlusion Analysis after Orthodontic Treatment: Capabilities of the Intraoral Scanner and T-Scan Novus System. Appl Sci 2023;13:4335.
  18. 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
  19. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.024
  20. Anh JW, Park JM, Chun YS, Kim M, Kim M. A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction. Korean J Orthod 2016;46:3-12. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.1.3
  21. Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 2013;16:11-21.
  22. Park JM, Park EJ, Heo SJ. Suitable scanning procedures for various prosthodontic treatments and the utilization of intraoral scanner. J Korean Dent Assoc 2014;52:354-62. https://doi.org/10.22974/jkda.2014.52.6.003
  23. Muller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int 2016;47:343-9.
  24. Park JM, Jeon J, Heo SJ. Accuracy comparison of buccal bite scans by five intra-oral scanners. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2018;34:17-31. https://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2018.34.1.17
  25. Li L, Chen H, Wang Y, Sun Y. Construction of virtual intercuspal occlusion: Considering tooth displacement. J Oral Rehabil 2021;48:701-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.13153
  26. Jeong Y, Shim JS, Kim JH, Kim JE, Lee H. Accuracy of Bite Registration Using Intraoral Scanner Based on Data Trimming Strategy for Fremitus Teeth. J Korean Dent Sci 2022;15:61-7.
  27. Miura H, Hasegawa S, Okada D, Ishihara H. The measurement of physiological tooth displacement in function. J Med Dent Sci 1998;45:103-15.
  28. Brizuela-Velasco A, Alvarez-Arenal A, EllakuriaEchevarria J, Rio-Highsmith Jd, Santamaria-Arrieta G, Martin-Bianco N. Influence of Articulating Paper Thickness on Occlusal Contacts Registration: A Preliminary Report. Int J Prosthodont 2015;28:360-2. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4112