Imaging Science in Dentistry

  • 제49권4호
  • /
  • Pages.257-263
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 2233-7822(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-7830(eISSN)
대한영상치의학회 (Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Three-dimensional comparison of 2 digital models obtained from cone-beam computed tomographic scans of polyvinyl siloxane impressions and plaster models

  • Park, Jin-Yi (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Dasomi (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Han, Sang-Sun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Yu, Hyung-Seog (Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Cha, Jung-Yul (Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
  • 투고 : 2019.06.26
  • 심사 : 2019.08.30
  • 발행 : 2019.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: This study was performed to evaluate the dimensional accuracy of digital dental models constructed from cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) scans of polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impressions and cast scan models. Materials and Methods: A pair of PVS impressions was obtained from 20 subjects and scanned using CBCT (resolution, 0.1 mm). A cast scan model was constructed by scanning the gypsum model using a model scanner. After reconstruction of the digital models, the mesio-distal width of each tooth, inter-canine width, and inter-molar width were measured, and the Bolton ratios were calculated and compared. The 2 models were superimposed and the difference between the models was measured using 3-dimensional analysis. Results: The range of mean error between the cast scan model and the CBCT scan model was -0.15 mm to 0.13 mm in the mesio-distal width of the teeth and 0.03 mm to 0.42 mm in the width analysis. The differences in the Bolton ratios between the cast scan models and CBCT scan models were 0.87 (anterior ratio) and 0.72 (overall ratio), with no significant difference (P>0.05). The mean maxillary and mandibular difference when the cast scan model and the CBCT scan model were superimposed was 53 ㎛. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference in most of the measurements. The maximum tooth size difference was 0.15mm, and the average difference in model overlap was 53 ㎛. Digital models produced by scanning impressions at a high resolution using CBCT can be used in clinical practice.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 2011; 14: 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01503.x
  2. Horton HM, Miller JR, Gaillard PR, Larson BE. Technique comparison for efficient orthodontic tooth measurements using digital models. Angle Orthod 2010; 80: 254-61. https://doi.org/10.2319/041709-219.1
  3. Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 16.e1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.03.002
  4. Mullen SR, Martin CA, Ngan P, Gladwin M. Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 346-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.044
  5. Reuschl RP, Heuer W, Stiesch M, Wenzel D, Dittmer MP. Reliability and validity of measurements on digital study models and plaster models. Eur J Orthod 2016; 38: 22-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv001
  6. Lim MY, Lim SH. Comparison of model analysis measurements among plaster model, laser scan digital model, and cone beam CT image. Korean J Orthod 2009; 39: 6-17. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2009.39.1.6
  7. Maret D, Telmon N, Peters OA, Lepage B, Treil J, Inglese JM, et al. Effect of voxel size on the accuracy of 3D reconstructions with cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 649-55. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmf/81804525
  8. Lee SM, Hou Y, Cho JH, Hwang HS. Dimensional accuracy of digital dental models from cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions according to time elapsed after the impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 149: 287-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.08.014
  9. Jiang T, Lee SM, Hou Y, Chang X, Hwang HS. Evaluation of digital dental models obtained from dental cone-beam computed tomography scan of alginate impressions. Korean J Orthod 2016; 46: 129-36. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.3.129
  10. Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Tutein Nolthenius HE, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 143: 140-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.06.018
  11. Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 129: 794-803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.08.023
  12. Bishara SE, Jakobsen JR, Abdallah EM, Fernandez Garcia A. Comparisons of mesiodistal and buccolingual crown dimensions of the permanent teeth in three populations from Egypt, Mexico, and the United States. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 96: 416-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90326-0
  13. Mayers M, Firestone AR, Rashid R, Vig KW. Comparison of peer assessment rating (PAR) index scores of plaster and computer-based digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 128: 431-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.04.035
  14. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013; 109: 121-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1
  15. Redlich M, Weinstock T, Abed Y, Schneor R, Holdstein Y, Fischer A. A new system for scanning, measuring and analyzing dental casts based on a 3D holographic sensor. Orthod Craniofac Res 2008; 11: 90-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2007.00417.x
  16. Aalaei S, Adli AR, Mansoorali MR, Gholami F. Dimensional stability of two polyvinyl siloxane impression materials in different time intervals. J Dent Biomater 2015; 2: 155-61.
  17. Akyalcin S, Dyer DJ, English JD, Sar C. Comparison of 3-dimensional dental models from different sources: diagnostic accuracy and surface registration analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144: 831-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.08.014
  18. de Waard O, Rangel FA, Fudalej PS, Bronkhorst EM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Breuning KH. Reproducibility and accuracy of linear measurements on dental models derived from cone-beam computed tomography compared with digital dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 146: 328-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.05.026
  19. Bazi Y, Bruzzone L, Melgani F. Image thresholding based on the EM algorithm and the generalized Gaussian distribution. Pattern Recogn 2007; 40: 619-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2006.05.006
  20. Grunheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 146: 673-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023

피인용 문헌

  1. Comparative Evaluation of Digitization of Diagnostic Dental Cast (Plaster) Models Using Different Scanning Technologies vol.8, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8030079
  2. Scanning Accuracy of Bracket Features and Slot Base Angle in Different Bracket Materials by Four Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study vol.14, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14020365