Background: Three-dimensional scans are increasingly used to quantify biological topographical changes and clinical health outcomes. Traditionally, the use of 3D scans has been limited to specialized centers owing to the high cost of the scanning equipment and the necessity for complex analysis software. Technological advances have made cheaper, more accessible methods of data capture and analysis available in the field of dentistry, potentially facilitating a primary care system to quantify disease progression. However, this system has yet to be compared with previous high-precision methods in university hospital settings. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare a dental primary care method of data capture (intraoral scanner) with a precision hospital-based method (laser profilometer) in addition to comparing open source and commercial software available for data analysis. Methods: Longitudinal dental wear data from 30 patients were analyzed using a two-factor factorial experimental design. Bimaxillary intraoral digital scans (TrueDefinition, 3M, UK) and conventional silicone impressions, poured in type-4 dental stone, were made at both baseline and follow-up appointments (mean 36 months, SD 10.9). Stone models were scanned using precision laser profilometry (Taicaan, Southampton, UK). Three-dimensional changes in both forms of digital scans of the first molars (n=76) were quantitatively analyzed using the engineering software Geomagic Control (3D Systems, Germany) and freeware WearCompare (Leeds Digital Dentistry, UK). Volume change (mm3) was the primary measurement outcome. The maximum point loss (μm) and the average profile loss (μm) were also recorded. Data were paired and skewed, and were therefore compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Bonferroni correction. Results: The median (IQR) volume change for Geomagic using profilometry and using the intraoral scan was –0.37 mm3 (–3.75-2.30) and +0.51 mm3 (–2.17-4.26), respectively (P<.001). Using WearCompare, the median (IQR) volume change for profilometry and intraoral scanning was –1.21 mm3 (–3.48-0.56) and –0.39 mm3 (–3.96-2.76), respectively (P=.04). WearCompare detected significantly greater volume loss than Geomagic regardless of scanner type. No differences were observed between groups with respect to the maximum point loss or average profile loss. Conclusions: As expected, the method of data capture, software used, and measurement metric all significantly influenced the measurement outcome. However, when appropriate analysis was used, the primary care system was able to quantify the degree of change and can be recommended depending on the accuracy needed to diagnose a condition. Lower-resolution scanners may underestimate complex changes when measuring at the micron level.

This is the abstract only. Read the full article on the JMIR site. JMIR is the leading open access journal for eHealth and healthcare in the Internet age.

中文翻译：

---

扫描仪精度和分析软件在量化三维口内变化中的影响：两因素析因实验设计

背景：三维扫描越来越多地用于量化生物地形变化和临床健康结果。传统上，由于扫描设备的高成本和复杂分析软件的必要性，3D扫描的使用仅限于专门的中心。科技的进步使牙科领域的数据采集和分析方法变得更便宜，更容易获得，从而有可能促进初级保健系统量化疾病的进展。但是，该系统尚未与大学医院环境中以前的高精度方法进行比较。目的：这项研究的目的是将牙科数据采集的初级保健方法（口腔内扫描仪）与基于医院的精密方法（激光轮廓仪）进行比较，同时比较可用于数据分析的开源软件和商业软件。方法：采用两因素因子实验设计分析了30例患者的纵向牙齿磨损数据。在基线和随访时（平均36个月，SD 10.9）进行双颌口内数字扫描（TrueDefinition，3M，英国）和常规的硅胶印​​模，注入4型牙石中。使用精密激光轮廓仪（英国南安普敦的Taicaan）扫描石材模型。使用工程软件Geomagic Control（3D Systems，3D Systems，3D Systems）对第一磨牙的两种数字扫描形式（n = 76）的三维变化进行了定量分析。德国）和免费软件WearCompare（英国利兹数字牙科）。体积变化（mm3）是主要的测量结果。还记录了最大点损耗（μm）和平均轮廓损耗（μm）。数据是成对和偏斜的，因此使用Wilcoxon符号秩检验和Bonferroni校正进行比较。结果：使用轮廓仪和口内扫描，Geomagic的中位（IQR）体积变化分别为–0.37 mm3（–3.75-2.30）和+0.51 mm3（–2.17-4.26）（P <.001）。使用WearCompare，轮廓测量和口内扫描的中位（IQR）体积变化分别为–1.21 mm3（–3.48-0.56）和–0.39 mm3（–3.96-2.76）（P = .04）。无论扫描仪类型如何，WearCompare所检测到的体积损失均明显比Geomagic大。在最大点损失或平均轮廓损失方面，各组之间未观察到差异。结论：正如预期的那样，数据捕获方法，使用的软件和测量指标都对测量结果产生了重大影响。但是，当使用适当的分析方法时，基层医疗系统能够量化变化的程度，并可以根据诊断疾病所需的准确性来推荐该系统。在微米级别进行测量时，较低分辨率的扫描仪可能会低估复杂的变化。初级保健系统能够量化变化的程度，并可以根据诊断病情所需的准确性进行推荐。在微米级别进行测量时，较低分辨率的扫描仪可能会低估复杂的变化。初级保健系统能够量化变化的程度，并可以根据诊断病情所需的准确性进行推荐。在微米级别进行测量时，较低分辨率的扫描仪可能会低估复杂的变化。

这仅仅是抽象的。阅读JMIR网站上的全文。JMIR是互联网时代电子健康和医疗保健领域领先的开放获取期刊。