口内扫描仪全牙列扫描精度及不同操作者间扫描精度差异的研究

发布时间：2018-03-08 15:37

本文选题：口内扫描　切入点：模型扫描　出处：《山东大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：目的:本研究以硅橡胶印模灌制的石膏模型经模型扫描仪扫描所得数据作为参考,评估口内扫描仪(iTero(?)ElementTM,Align Tech.,USA)分别于口内扫描天然牙列的精度(accuracy)以及于体外扫描石膏模型的精度。另外通过不同操作者使用同一台扫描仪对放置于仿真头模环境中及口外直视环境下的同一标准模型进行扫描,评估不同操作者间结果的差异性。材料和方法:1.口内扫描仪扫描全牙列精度的研究选取符合条件的志愿者15名,使用硅橡胶(Polyvinyl Siloxane,PVS)印模材料制取印模并灌制石膏模型,使用模型扫描仪(Activity888,Smart optic,Germany)获取石膏数字化模型(P组)作为参考模型,使用iTero Element分别于口内扫描天然牙列获取扫描模型(T组)、于体外扫描相应石膏模型获取数字模型(D组)作为测试模型,用以评价扫描的准确度(trueness)。选取志愿者一名,使用iTero分别于口内扫描全牙列获取数字模型10副、于口外扫描石膏模型获取数字模型10副,用以评价扫描的精密度(precision)。2.不同操作者间扫描精度差异性的研究制作与仿真头模相匹配的一副标准石膏模型作为扫描对象,由10名正畸医师分别于仿真头模环境下、口外直视环境下使用同一台iTero扫描仪对该标准模型扫描,获取数字模型,并使用模型扫描仪获取参考数字模型(R组)。3.数据处理将以上模型的.stl文件导入3D图像校核软件中,进行边缘修整,各组间、组内将相对应的参考模型、测试模型进行配准,使用3D比较功能比较分析两模型间的偏离程度并记录数据,其中较小的RMS值提示两模型间较好的一致性。将各组差异值导入 SPSS(IBM SPSS Statistics 21,IBM,NY,USA),以上下颌及不同环境进行分组。使用Kolmogorov-Smirnoff检验各组数值的正态分布,使用Levene's test检验方差齐性。如符合正态分布及方差齐性,则使用t检验比较两组间差异性;如不符合则使用Kruskal-Wallis检验。若P0.05提示有显著性差异。结果:1.口内扫描仪扫描全牙列精度的研究口内扫描天然牙列的准确度为99.99±26.80μm,体外扫描石膏模型的准确度为80.74±20.33μm。比较两种环境下准确度差异性,P0.01,具有显著差异性。口内扫描天然牙列的准确度的精密度为77.05±12.73μm,体外扫描石膏模型的精密度为46.72±16.35μm,比较两者差异性,P0.01,具有显著差异性。2.不同操作者间扫描精度差异性的研究在仿真头模环境下,全口扫描准确度为104.80±13.41μm,在口外直视环境下,全口扫描准确度为106.36士12.37μm。对比两种环境下模型扫描的准确度,P0.05,无显著差异。上下颌模型扫描准确度间存在显著差异。在仿真头模环境下,全口扫描精密度为49.40±19.10μm;在口外直视环境下,全口扫描精密度为59.54±19.43μm,下颌扫描精密度优于上颌扫描精密度。对比两种环境下扫描的精密度,P0.05,具有显著差异性。结论1.以模型扫描仪数据为参考,iTero Element扫描全牙列精度在正畸临床可接受范围内,但体外扫描石膏模型精度优于口内扫描天然牙列精度。2.不同操作者使用iTero Element扫描精度存在一定程度的差异性,但对于正畸临床工作影响较小。
[Abstract]:Objective: To study the plaster model of silicone rubber impression made by the scanner as a reference data model, evaluation of intraoral scanners (iTero (?) ElementTM, Align Tech., USA) scan the natural dentition in precision respectively (accuracy) and precision in vitro scanning plaster model. In addition by different operators with a scanner to scan placed on the head simulator environment and extraoral open environment with a standard model, the difference between the results of the evaluation of different operators. Materials and methods: 1. intraoral scanning the whole dentition precision study selected in accordance with the conditions of the 15 volunteers, the use of silicone rubber (Polyvinyl Siloxane. PVS) impression material impressions and casting plaster model, using the model of scanner (Activity888 Smart, optic, Germany) to obtain the digital model of gypsum (P group) as a reference model, using iTero Element In the mouth of natural dentition for scanning scanning model (group T), in vitro scanning corresponding plaster model to obtain digital model (D group) as the test model is used to evaluate the accuracy of scanning (trueness). A selection of volunteers, the use of iTero in intraoral scanning the whole dentition to obtain digital model 10 to obtain a plaster model, face scanning digital model 10, in order to evaluate the scanning precision (precision).2. interobserver difference of scanning precision production and head simulator to match a standard plaster model as the scanning object, by 10 orthodontists in head simulator environment, the use of the same a iTero scanner to scan the standard model under the environment of open access to digital outlets, model, and the model is used to obtain reference digital scanner model (group R).3. data processing will be above the model.Stl file into the 3D image calibration software In the edge trimming, each group, group within the corresponding reference model, registration test model, using the 3D function analysis and comparison of two models of the degree of deviation and the data recording, the smaller RMS value indicated good consistency between two models. The difference value into SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics 21 IBM, NY, USA), group, and different environment. The mandibular normal distribution using numerical Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test groups, the use of Levene's test of variance test. As with normal distribution and homogeneity of variance, then use the t test than the difference is between the two groups; if not use the Kruskal-Wallis test. If the P0.05 indicates a significant difference. Results: 1. port scanner full dentition accuracy of intraoral scanning of natural dentition accuracy was 99.99 + 26.80 m in vitro, scanning plaster model accuracy is 80.74 + 20.33 u M. And the accuracy of the two is under the environment of P0.01, with significant difference. In the natural dentition scanning accuracy of precision is 77.05 + 12.73 m in vitro, scanning the plaster model of the precision was 46.72 + 16.35 m, compare the difference of.2., P0.01, no significant differences with the operator the difference between the scanning precision research in head simulator environment with full port scan accuracy was 104.80 + 13.41 m, outside open environment, full port scanning accuracy was 106.36 + 12.37 M. comparison of the two model under the environment of scanning accuracy, P0.05, no significant difference. There was significant difference the mandibular model scanning accuracy. In the simulation model under the environment of full mouth scanning precision is 49.40 + 19.10 m; outside open environment, full mouth scanning precision is 59.54 + 19.43 m, scanning precision is better than that of the maxillary mandibular scanning precision. Comparing the two kinds of environment scanning The precision of P0.05, with significant difference. Conclusion 1. to model the scanner data for reference, iTero Element scanning the whole dentition accuracy in clinical acceptable range, but the difference in the accuracy of the model is better than that of intraoral scanning gypsum natural dentition scanning precision of.2. has a certain degree of different operators iTero Element using scanning precision, but the orthodontic clinic had little effect.

【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：R783.5

【相似文献】