• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics >Accuracy of 3D digital modeling of dental arches
【24h】

Accuracy of 3D digital modeling of dental arches

机译：牙弓3D数字建模的准确性

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Objective: The aim of the study was to verify and compare the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions obtained using two intraoral scanners and three scanning methodologies. Methods: A resin model created with dental 3-D printing was scanned by a reference scanner (Zfx Evolution - Zimmer Biomet, Palm Beach Gardens, FL) in order to obtain a 3D reference; the same resin model was then scanned with two different intraoral scanners (Zfx IntraScan and Carestream 3600 - CS 3600 ? , Carestream, Rochester, NY, USA) using: Technique A (from tooth #27 up to tooth #17); Technique B (from tooth #11 up to tooth #17 and then from tooth #21 up to tooth #27) and Technique C (from tooth #22 up to tooth #17, and then from tooth #12 up to tooth #27 - the MeshLab software v. 1.3.3 was then used to match the two scans). The scans obtained were superimposed over the reference scan by means of a software, and the volumetric discrepancies were calculated. Results: The mean results for the Zfx Intrascan scanner were: Technique A = 302.47 ± 37.42 μm; Technique B = 180.45 ± 29.86 μm; Technique C = 147.34 ± 28.23 μm. The mean results for the Carestream 3600 scanner were: Technique A = 303.59 ± 40.20 μm; Technique B = 181.53 ± 29.61 μm; Technique C = 142.28 ± 35.33 μm. Technique C, used by both scanners, produced less volumetric discrepancies compared to the other techniques. Conclusions: The scanning technique had a statistically significant effect on the quality of the scan ( p 0.0001), whereas the scanner did not present any significant influence ( p = 0.91).
机译：目的：本研究的目的是验证和比较使用两个口腔内扫描仪和三种扫描方法获得的全牙弓数字印模的准确性。方法：通过参考扫描仪（Zfx Evolution-Zimmer Biomet，棕榈滩花园，佛罗里达州）扫描通过牙科3-D打印创建的树脂模型，以获得3D参考;然后，使用两种不同的口腔内扫描仪（Zfx IntraScan和Carestream 3600-CS 3600？，Carestream，Rochester，NY，美国）使用相同的树脂模型进行扫描：技术A（从27号牙齿到17号牙齿）;技术B（从11号牙齿到17号牙齿，然后从21号牙齿到27号牙齿）和技术C（从22号牙齿到17号牙齿，然后从12号牙齿到27号牙齿-然后使用MeshLab软件1.3.3版来匹配两次扫描）。借助于软件将获得的扫描叠加在参考扫描上，并计算体积差异。结果：Zfx Intrascan扫描仪的平均结果为：技术A = 302.47±37.42μm;技术B = 180.45±29.86μm;技术C = 147.34±28.23μm。 Carestream 3600扫描仪的平均结果为：技术A = 303.59±40.20μm;技术B = 181.53±29.61μm;技术C = 142.28±35.33μm。与其他技术相比，两个扫描仪使用的技术C产生的体积差异较小。结论：扫描技术对扫描质量具有统计学上的显着影响（p <0.0001），而扫描仪没有表现出任何显着影响（p = 0.91）。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号