无牙颌种植传统与数字化印模精度的体外比较研究

doi:10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2022.11.006

口腔医学研究 ›› 2022, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (11): 1026-1032.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2022.11.006

无牙颌种植传统与数字化印模精度的体外比较研究

李超越, 巢家瑞, 王振宇, 陈度, 刘飞, 沈颉飞^*

口腔疾病研究国家重点实验室,国家口腔疾病临床医学研究中心,四川大学华西口腔医院修复Ⅱ科四川成都 610041

收稿日期:2022-06-15 出版日期:2022-11-25 发布日期:2022-11-22
通讯作者: *沈颉飞,E-mail:shenjiefei@scu.edu.cn
作者简介:李超越(1996~ ),女,四川德阳人,博士在读,研究方向:数字化种植。
基金资助:
国家科技支撑计划项目课题(编号:2015BAH13F02)国家自然科学基金(编号:82071149)

Accuracy of Conventional versus Digital Implant Impressions in Edentulous Models in Vitro

LI Chaoyue, CHAO Jiarui, WANG Zhenyu, CHEN Du, LIU Fei, SHEN Jiefei^*

State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Department of Prosthodontics Ⅱ, West China School of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China

Received:2022-06-15 Online:2022-11-25 Published:2022-11-22

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的: 探讨上下无牙颌模型植入不同数量种植体后,使用传统印模法及数字化印模法取模的精度差异。方法: 对上下无牙颌标准模型植入2颗、4颗、6颗种植体,使用传统印模法和数字化印模法取模后,利用逆向工程软件和三坐标测量机,从表面、三维线性、角度3个方面分析两种方法取模准确度及精密度差异。结果: (1)不同数量上下颌种植标准模型中,使用数字化印模法的准确度在至少一个方面上高于传统印模法。(2)不同数量上下颌种植标准模型中,使用数字化方法取模精密度更高。结论: 本实验条件下,无牙颌种植模型使用数字化印模方法取模精度更高。

关键词: 无牙颌, 种植修复, 印模, 数字化, 精度

Abstract: Objective: To investigate the difference of accuracy between conventional and digital impression methods with different numbers of implants in the maxillary and mandibular edentulous models. Methods: After two, four, and six implants were placed in the maxillary and mandibular edentulous standard models, both conventional impression and digital impression were made. The differences in the trueness and precision between two methods were analyzed in terms of surface property, three-dimensional linearity, and angularity using reverse engineering software and a three-coordinate measuring machine. Results: (1) The trueness of digital impression method was higher than that of conventional impression method in at least one aspect for maxillary and mandibular standard models with different number of implants. (2) The precision of the digital method was higher for maxillary and mandibular standard models with different number of implants. Conclusion: Within the limit of this experimental condition, the accuracy of digital implant impressions was higher in edentulous arch.

Key words: edentulous, implant restoration, impression techniques, digital, accuracy

李超越, 巢家瑞, 王振宇, 陈度, 刘飞, 沈颉飞. 无牙颌种植传统与数字化印模精度的体外比较研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2022, 38(11): 1026-1032.

LI Chaoyue, CHAO Jiarui, WANG Zhenyu, CHEN Du, LIU Fei, SHEN Jiefei. Accuracy of Conventional versus Digital Implant Impressions in Edentulous Models in Vitro[J]. Journal of Oral Science Research, 2022, 38(11): 1026-1032.

参考文献

[1] Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Gallucci GO, et al. Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2014, 29(4):836-845.
[2] Baig MR. Accuracy of impressions of multiple implants in the edentulous arch: a systematic review [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2014, 29(4):869-880.
[3] Albanchez-González MI, Brinkmann JC, Peláez-Rico J, et al. Accuracy of digital dental implants impression taking with intraoral scanners compared with conventional impression techniques: A systematic review of in vitro studies [J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2022, 19(4):2026.
[4] Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, et al. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2017, 28(11):1360-1367.
[5] Revilla-León M, Att W, Ozcan M, et al. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2021, 125(3):470-478.
[6] Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, et al. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2016, 27(4):465-472.
[7] Ribeiro P, Herrero-Climent M, Díaz-Castro C, et al. Accuracy of implant casts generated with conventional and digital impressions-an in vitro study [J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2018, 15(8):1599.
[8] Tan MY, Yee SHX, Wong KM, et al. Comparison of three-dimensional accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions: Effect of interimplant distance in an edentulous arch [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2019, 34(2):366-380.
[9] Kim KR, Seo KY, Kim S. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2019, 122(6):543-549.
[10] Çakmak G, Yilmaz H, Treviño A, et al. The effect of scanner type and scan body position on the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant scans [J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2020, 22(4):533-541.
[11] Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2013, 109(2):121-128.
[12] Mangano FG, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, et al. Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: A comparative in vitro study [J]. PLoS One, 2016, 11(9):e0163107.
[13] Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, et al. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study [J]. Bmc Oral Health, 2017, 17(1):92.
[14] Lyu M, Di P, Lin Y, et al. Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2021:S0022-3913(21)00058-5.
[15] Paratelli A, Vania S, Gómez-Polo C, et al. Techniques to improve the accuracy of complete-arch implant intraoral digital scans: A systematic review [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2021:S0022-3913(21)00486-8.
[16] Gómez-Polo M, Ballesteros J, Perales-Padilla P, et al. Guided implant scanning: A procedure for improving the accuracy of implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2020, 124(2):135-139.
[17] Mizumoto RM, Alp G, zcan M, et al. The effect of scanning the palate and scan body position on the accuracy of complete-arch implant scans [J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2019, 21(5):987-994.
[18] Tohme H, Lawand G, Chmielewska M, et al. Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An invitro study [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2021: S0022-3913(21)00269-9.

无牙颌种植传统与数字化印模精度的体外比较研究

Accuracy of Conventional versus Digital Implant Impressions in Edentulous Models in Vitro

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	段琳娜, 张志宏, 刘红红, 韩倩, 陈佳, 陈雨妍. 不同部位动态导航引导下的口腔种植精度对比研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2022, 38(9): 827-830.
[2]	贾相斌, 曹潇, 张宇宸, 眭永潮, 周秦. 美学区单颗种植体临时修复后不同印模方式获取软组织轮廓准确性的对比分析[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2022, 38(9): 837-842.
[3]	陈梓俊, 宋应亮. 牙种植中动静态系统的精度分析[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2022, 38(8): 710-714.
[4]	余帆, 吕长海, 马雪婷, 伏丽林, 饶南荃, 刘波. 口内扫描仪辅助下预热树脂充填窝沟龋的微渗漏研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2022, 38(7): 659-665.
[5]	苏明, 魏路明, 吴凯鑫, 袁长永, 王鹏来. 探究过预备法对上前牙区即刻种植精度的影响[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2022, 38(4): 340-343.
[6]	余念, 曹阳, 俞青. 无牙颌两种印模方法的数字化模型偏差分析[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2022, 38(3): 252-255.
[7]	黎锐锋, 苏志康, 陈定, 郭吕华. 全程数字化釉锆牙合贴面桥治疗牙列重度磨耗1例[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2022, 38(3): 288-290.
[8]	焦铁军, 李博龙, 傅娜. 数字化先锋钻导板和全程导板在全口种植手术中的精度分析[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2022, 38(2): 120-124.
[9]	周立伟, 李孟铨. 多单位种植修复中组合运用螺丝固位与粘接固位的临床回顾性研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2022, 38(2): 125-128.
[10]	姜向瑞, 薛坤, 李葆祚. 不同骨质对牙支持式数字化种植导板精确度的影响分析[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2022, 38(2): 134-137.
[11]	杜瑞钿, 刘森庆, 何娟, 邱耀聪. 牙根留置技术在前牙区种植修复的临床效果研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2022, 38(11): 1037-1041.
[12]	柳忠豪. 计算机辅助规划设计助力精准种植与长期稳定[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2021, 37(9): 775-779.
[13]	王稚英. 数字化技术在牙槽骨严重骨量不足种植义齿修复中的应用[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2021, 37(6): 485-488.
[14]	赵宝红, 庞鸿娟, 李雪菁, 江鹭鹭, 邹丽妍, 邓春富, 张翀, 王丹宁, 田思睿. 不同类型种植覆盖义齿临床疗效的回顾性研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2021, 37(6): 549-553.
[15]	陈欢欢, 朱莉, 宋逸婷, 蔡孟哲, 徐一迪, 黄盛斌, 麻健丰. 光固化成型ZTA全瓷冠的机械性能及精度研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2021, 37(6): 554-558.