[1]吴树洪,王璐,萧智利,等.CEREC 3D/inLab MC XL系统5种扫描方法构建数字化模型精度的对比研究[J].陆军军医大学学报(原第三军医大学学报),2011,33(02):200-203.
 Wu Shuhong,Wang Lu,Xiao Zhili,et al.Accuracy of digital model constructed by 5 scanning methods in CEREC 3D/inLab MC XL system: a comparative study[J].J Amry Med Univ (J Third Mil Med Univ),2011,33(02):200-203.
点击复制

CEREC 3D/inLab MC XL系统5种扫描方法构建数字化模型精度的对比研究(/HTML )
分享到:

陆军军医大学学报(原第三军医大学学报)[ISSN:1000-5404/CN:51-1095/R]

卷:
33卷
期数:
2011年第02期
页码:
200-203
栏目:
论著
出版日期:
2011-01-30

文章信息/Info

Title:
Accuracy of digital model constructed by 5 scanning methods in CEREC 3D/inLab MC XL system: a comparative study
作者:
吴树洪王璐萧智利谭发兵刘薇
重庆医科大学附属口腔医院:修复工艺科,修复科,牙周粘膜科
Author(s):
Wu Shuhong Wang Lu Xiao Zhili Tan Fabing Liu wei
Department of Dental Lab,Department of Prosthodontics, Department of Periodontics and Oral Mucosal Diseases, Affiliated Hospital of Stomatology, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400015, China
关键词:
美学陶瓷的椅旁修复计算机辅助设计与制造数字化模型扫描精度
Keywords:
chairside economical restoration of esthetic ceramics computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing digital model scan accuracy
分类号:
R197.39;R783
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的   比较CEREC 3D/inLab MC XL系统5种扫描方法构建数字化模型的精度,探寻最佳的扫描方法。   方法   用一个标准的种植基台作为扫描对象,分别用inEos顶端拍摄、旋转拍摄、顶端和旋转联合拍摄、inLab MC XL激光扫描、CEREC蓝光拍摄5种扫描方法构建数字化模型。测量种植基台及各数字化模型的上表面直径,颈缘直径及上表面至颈缘的距离,测量结果用SAS 9.2进行统计学分析。   结果   肉眼观察5种扫描方法构建的数字化模型存在明显差异,inEos旋转拍摄构建的数字化模型细节反映最清楚,各线、角清晰;inEos顶端拍摄和CEREC蓝光拍摄构建的数字化模型轴面的细节不够清楚,倒凹部分被忽略,有一定的失真,边缘反映不够清楚。SNK-q检验显示采用inEos旋转拍摄和inLab MC XL激光扫描2种扫描方法构建的数字化模型与实测结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),其他3种扫描方法构建的数字化模型与实测结果差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。   结论   CEREC 3D/inLab MC XL系统的5种扫描方法中,inEos旋转拍摄和inLab MC XL激光扫描2种扫描方法可以构建较准确的数字化模型,inEos顶端拍摄、inEos顶端和旋转联合拍摄以及CEREC蓝光拍摄略差。
Abstract:
Objective   To compare the accuracy of the digital model constructed by 5 different scanning methods in CEREC 3D/inLab MC XL system in order to explore the best scanning method, and to provide reference for clinical use.    Methods   A standard implant abutment was used as the scanning object in this experiment. Then 5 different scanning methods, including Top view, inEos Rotational, inEos Top&Rot, inLab MC XL Scanner, and CEREC Bluecam, was used respectively to construct the digital models of the implant abutment. The upper surface diameter, gingival margin diameter and distance from the upper surface edge to the gingival margin of the abutment and the digital models were measured respectively. The results were statistically analyzed by using SAS9.2.    Results   By eye view, these constructed digital models had significantly difference. The constructed digital model by inEos Rotational had the clearest feature, such as every single line and every angle. The inEos Top view model and the CEREC Bluecam models displayed the details of axial planes not clear enough. Some undercuts were ignored, the edge was fuzzy, and some distortion existed. SNK-q pairwise test showed that there was no significant statistical difference in the measured data from the digital models constructed by inEos Rotational and inLab MC XL Scanner with object itself (P>0.05). However, the experiment results of the other 3 scanning methods had significant difference with the results of the object (P<0.05).    Conclusion   Of the 5 scanning methods of CEREC 3D/inlab MC XL system, inEos Rotational and inLab MC XL Scanner can achieve more accurate digital model. inEos Top view, combined use of inEos Top view and Rotational as well as the CEREC Bluecam are not comparatively good enough.
更新日期/Last Update: 2011-01-19