Scholarlink

Objective <p>The aim of present study was to investigate the accuracy of two registration methods, best fit alignment and manual multi-point alignment followed by global registration, used in edentulous jaw impressions.</p> Methods <p>Traditional complete denture impressions were taken via two methods: open-mouth and closed-mouth methods. The edentulous impression models, including maxilla:14 pairs and mandible:12 pairs, were scanned in the model scanner and saved in STL format. In the reverse engineering software Geomagic Control 2014, two registration methods, namely, best fit alignment and manual multi-point alignment combined with global registration, were used independently to align the open-mouth and closed-mouth impressions of the same patient, and the 3-dimensional (3D) deviation between the reference and test models was recorded. SPSS26.0, paired <i>t</i> test, significance criterion two-sided <i>α</i> = 0.05.</p> Results <p>The nominal value threshold area was less in the best fit alignment group (maxilla 48.58%, mandible 44.16%) than in the manual + global registration group (maxilla 70.55%, mandible 66.27%), maxilla <i>P</i> = 0.000 &lt; 0.05, mandible <i>P</i> = 0.014 &lt; 0.05. The root mean square (RMS), average positive deviation and average negative deviation of the best fit alignment group were greater than those of the manual + global registration group, there were significant differences in the maxillary (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.05), but not significant difference in the mandibular (<i>P</i> &gt; 0.05).</p> Conclusion <p>The manual multi-point combined global registration method is more accurate than the best fit alignment used in the registration of edentulous jaw impressions and is more effective for the maxilla.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of the accuracy of the image registration methods for the impressions of edentulous jaws

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月26日

查看全文
  • Mingli Liu,
  • Xiaotong Li,
  • Zhe Qu

摘要

Objective

The aim of present study was to investigate the accuracy of two registration methods, best fit alignment and manual multi-point alignment followed by global registration, used in edentulous jaw impressions.

Methods

Traditional complete denture impressions were taken via two methods: open-mouth and closed-mouth methods. The edentulous impression models, including maxilla:14 pairs and mandible:12 pairs, were scanned in the model scanner and saved in STL format. In the reverse engineering software Geomagic Control 2014, two registration methods, namely, best fit alignment and manual multi-point alignment combined with global registration, were used independently to align the open-mouth and closed-mouth impressions of the same patient, and the 3-dimensional (3D) deviation between the reference and test models was recorded. SPSS26.0, paired t test, significance criterion two-sided α = 0.05.

Results

The nominal value threshold area was less in the best fit alignment group (maxilla 48.58%, mandible 44.16%) than in the manual + global registration group (maxilla 70.55%, mandible 66.27%), maxilla P = 0.000 < 0.05, mandible P = 0.014 < 0.05. The root mean square (RMS), average positive deviation and average negative deviation of the best fit alignment group were greater than those of the manual + global registration group, there were significant differences in the maxillary (P < 0.05), but not significant difference in the mandibular (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The manual multi-point combined global registration method is more accurate than the best fit alignment used in the registration of edentulous jaw impressions and is more effective for the maxilla.