口腔医学研究

口腔医学研究 ›› 2022, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (12): 1171-1176.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2022.12.014

• 口腔修复学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

无牙颌印模不同配准方法的对比研究

刘明丽, 黎小桐, 王建敏, 曲哲*   

  1. 大连市口腔医院种植科 辽宁 大连 116021
  • 收稿日期:2022-04-29 出版日期:2022-12-28 发布日期:2022-12-26
  • 通讯作者: *曲哲,E-mail:quzhekq@outlook.com
  • 作者简介:刘明丽(1975~ ),女,辽宁辽阳人,主任医师,硕士,研究方向:口腔修复与种植数字化。

Comparison of Different Registration Methods for Impressions of Edentulous Jaw

LIU Mingli, LI Xiaotong, WANG Jianmin, QU Zhe*   

  1. Department of Implantology, Dalian Stomatological Hospital, Dalian 116021, China
  • Received:2022-04-29 Online:2022-12-28 Published:2022-12-26

PDF (PC)

182

摘要： 目的: 比较无牙颌印模两种配准方法配准结果的准确性,探讨适合无牙颌印模的配准方法。方法: 全口或半口牙列缺失要求传统全口义齿修复的患者,以开口与闭口两种方式取模,获得上颌模型12组,下颌模型10组,模型扫描仪扫描,STL格式保存。逆向工程软件分别使用最佳拟合对齐与手工多点+全局配准两种方法对开口式与闭口式印模进行配准,三维偏差分析。SPSS17.0,配对t检验,显著性标准双侧α=0.05。结果: 偏差名义值阈值区间面积最佳拟合对齐组(上颌48.58%,下颌44.16%)<手工+全局配准组(上颌70.55%,下颌66.27%),上颌P=0.000,下颌P=0.014,差异有统计学意义。上下颌RMS(root mean square)、平均正、负偏差最佳拟合对齐组>手工+全局配准组,差异上颌有统计学意义,下颌无统计学意义。结论: 无牙颌印模的配准,手工多点联合全局配准方法优于最佳拟合对齐方式,在上颌表现更突出。

关键词: 配准, 三维, 无牙颌

Abstract: Objective: To compare the registration accuracy of two methods used in edentulous jaw impressions, and to explore the suitable registration method. Methods: The impressions were taken by two methods, which were open-mouth and close-mouth. Twelve maxillary and 10 mandibular impressions were obtained and scanned by laboratory scanner, then saved in the format of STL. Open-mouth and close-mouth impressions were superimposed in reverse engineering software with two methods, respectively, i.e. Best Fit Alignment and Manual n points+Global Registration. Then the 3D deviation was showed. Results: The deviation nominal value range area percentage of Best Fit Alignment group (maxilla 48.58%, mandible 44.16%) < Manual+Global Registration group (maxilla 70.55%, mandible 66.27%). There was significant difference among maxilla and mandible (P<0.05). RMS (root mean square), mean positive, and negative deviation of Best Fit Alignment group were higher than those of Manual+Global Registration group, in which the differences of maxilla were statistically significant. Conclusion: Manual multi-point + Global Registration is better than the Best Fit Alignment for the impressions of edentulous jaw, especially in the maxilla.

Key words: registration, three dimension, edentulous jaw