使用Digital Wings扫描体的无牙颌种植口内扫描印模与传统印模的精确性比较

doi:10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2025.10.009

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的: 探究Digital Wings新型扫描体对无牙颌种植口内扫描印模技术精度的影响,分析其在数字化口内扫描组中的表现,以及与传统印模技术的精度的差异,为临床应用提供参考。方法: 使用最佳拟合法和绝对线性偏差法得到传统取模组、口内扫描组和标准模型组的种植体位置的准确性和精度有效值(root mean square, RMS)。结果: 传统组、普通扫描体组、新型CAD扫描体组和Digital Wings扫描体组准确性的均方根RMS中位数(四分位间距)分别为39.3(29.9~50.5) μm、135.1(50.8~260.5) μm、84.3(53.2~212.5) μm、81.3(33.8~133.2) μm。Digital Wings扫描体组和传统取模组比较无显著性差异(P＞0.05)。精度的RMS均数分别为35.3(12.4~98.5) μm、155.4(33.2~329.9) μm、116.4(4.4~349.8) μm、54.0(13.4~124.6) μm。Digital Wings扫描体组和新型CAD扫描体组与传统取模组比较无显著差异(P＞0.05)。结论: Digital Wings扫描体组的精度和传统组的精度比较无显著差异。扫描体的改进,如扫描体外形的改变使扫描体的精度逐渐增加。更多关于无牙颌种植扫描体体外研究和临床研究需要开展。

关键词: 精度, 准确性, Digital Wings, 扫描体, 无牙颌

Abstract: Objective: To investigate the effect of Digital Wings scanning body on the accuracy of oral scanning impression technique for edentulous maxillary implants, analyze its performance in several intraoral scanning groups, and compare its accuracy with that of the traditional impression technique. Methods: Root mean square (RMS) values for the trueness and precision of implant positions were obtained for conventional impression-taking group, intraoral scanning group, and standard model group using the best-fit method and the absolute linear deviation method. Results: RMS means of trueness for the conventional group, the normal scanner group, the new CAD scanner group, and the Digital Wings scanner group were 39.3 (29.9-50.5) μm, 135.1 (50.8-260.5) μm, 84.3 (53.2-212.5) μm, and 81.3 (33.8-133.2) μm, respectively. No significant difference was observed between the Digital Wings scanner group and the conventional mode-taking group (P>0.05). The RMS means of precision were 35.3 (12.4-98.5) μm, 155.4 (33.2-329.9) μm, 116.4 (4.4-349.8) μm, and 54.0 (13.4-124.6) μm, respectively. Additionally, no significant difference was found between the Digital Wings scanner group, the new CAD scanner group, and the traditional mode-taking group (P>0.05). Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference in accuracy between the Digital Wings scanner group and the conventional group. Improvements in scan body design, such as changes in the shape of the scan body, have led to a gradual increase in scanning accuracy. However, more in vitro and clinical studies on edentulous implant scan body are needed.

Key words: precision, trueness, Digital Wings, scan body, edentulous

黄婧, 陆沁怡, 徐鹏, 梁源. 使用Digital Wings扫描体的无牙颌种植口内扫描印模与传统印模的精确性比较[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2025, 41(10): 890-895.

HUANG Jing, LU Qinyi, XU Peng, LIANG Yuan. Study on Accuracy of Scanned Impressions of Edentulous Mandibular Implants and Conventional Impressions using Digital Wings Scanning Body[J]. Journal of Oral Science Research, 2025, 41(10): 890-895.

参考文献

[1] Labib AM, El-Beialy AR, Attia KH. Evaluation of the accuracy of digital models obtained using intraoral and extraoral scanners versus gold standard plaster model (diagnostic accuracy study) [J].Open Journal of Medical Imaging, 2020, 10(3):151-163.
[2] Passos L, Meiga S, Brigagão V, et al. Impact of different scanning strategies on the accuracy of two current intraoral scanning systems in complete-arch impressions: an in vitro study [J]. Int J Comput Dent, 2019, 22(4): 307-319.
[3] Guo DN, Liu YS, Pan SX, et al. Clinical efficiency and patient preference of immediate digital impression after implant placement for single implant-supported crown [J]. Chin J Dent Res, 2019, 22(1): 21-28.
[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] Nagata K, Fuchigami K, Okuhama Y, et al. Comparison of digital and silicone impressions for single-tooth implants and two- and three-unit implants for a free-end edentulous saddle [J]. BMC Oral Health, 2021, 21(1): 464.
[6] 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.
[7] Stimmelmayr M, GüTh JF, Erdelt K, et al. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit--an in vitro study [J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2012, 16(3): 851-856.
[8] García-Gil I, Cortés-Bretón-Brinkmann J, Jiménez-García J, et al. Precision and practical usefulness of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry: A systematic literature review [J]. J Clin Exp Dent, 2020, 12(8): e784-e793.
[9] Ke YF, Zhang YP, Chen JK, et al. Accuracy analysis of full-arch implant digital impressions when using a geometric feature [J]. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi, 2022, 57(2): 162-167.
[10] Huang R, Liu Y, Huang B, et al. Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: An in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2020, 31(7): 625-633.
[11] Pan Y, Tsoi JKH, Lam WYH, et al. The cumulative effect of error in the digital workflow for complete-arch implant-supported frameworks: An in vitro study [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2022, 33(9): 886-899.
[12] Att W, Witkowski S. Digital Workflow in Reconstructive Dentistry [M]. Berlin: Quintessenz Verlags-GmbH, 2019.
[13] Mizumoto RM, Alp G, Özcan 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.
[14] Miyoshi K, Tanaka S, Yokoyama S, et al. Effects of different types of intraoral scanners and scanning ranges on the precision of digital implant impressions in edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2020, 31(1): 74-83.
[15] Arcuri L, Pozzi A, Lio F, et al. Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: A randomized in vitro trial [J]. J Prosthodont Res, 2020, 64(2): 128-136.
[16] Motel C, Kirchner E, Adler W, et al. Impact of different scan bodies and scan strategies on the accuracy of digital implant impressions assessed with an intraoral scanner: An in vitro study [J]. J Prosthodont, 2020, 29(4): 309-314.
[17] Oh HS, Lim YJ, Kim B, et al. Effect of scanning-aid agents on the scanning accuracy in specially designed metallic models: A laboratory study [J]. PLoS One, 2022, 17(5): e0267742.
[18] Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, et al. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: effect of implant angulation and connection type [J]. Int J Dent, 2018, 2018: 3761750.
[19] Carneiro Pereira AL, Carvalho Porto de Freitas RF, de Fátima Trindade Pinto Campos M, et al. Trueness of a device for intraoral scanning to capture the angle and distance between implants in edentulous mandibular arches [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2022, 128(6): 1310-1317.
[20] Iturrate M, Eguiraun H, Solaberrieta E. Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis, using an auxiliary geometry part-An in vitro study [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2019, 30(12): 1250-1258.
[21] Farhan FA, Sahib AJ, Fatalla AA. Comparison of the accuracy of intraoral digital impression system and conventional impression techniques for multiple implants in the full-arch edentulous mandible [J]. J Clin Exp Dent, 2021, 13(5): e487-e492.
[22] Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, et al. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2014, 29(4): 853-862.
[23] Mennito AS, Evans ZP, Lauer AW, et al. Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems [J]. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2018, 30(2): 113-118.
[24] Latham J, Ludlow M, Mennito A, et al. Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2020, 123(1): 85-95.
[25] Carneiro Pereira AL, Souza Curinga MR, Melo Segundo HV, et al. Factors that influence the accuracy of intraoral scanning of total edentulous arches rehabilitated with multiple implants: A systematic review [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2023, 129(6): 855-862.