Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry (대한소아치과학회지)

Korean Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (대한소아치과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Validity, Reliability and Reproducibility of Space Analysis using Digital Model taken via Model Scanner and Intraoral Scanner: An In vivo Study

모델 스캐너와 구내 스캐너로 획득한 디지털 모형에서 시행한 공간 분석의 타당도, 신뢰도, 재현성 평가

  • Park, Seohyun (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Dental Clinic Center, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Jongsoo (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Oh, Sohee (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Dental Clinic Center, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital)
  • 박서현 (한림대학교 의과대학 한림대학교성심병원 소아치과학교실) ;
  • 김종수 (단국대학교 치과대학 소아치과학교실) ;
  • 오소희 (한림대학교 의과대학 한림대학교성심병원 소아치과학교실)
  • Received : 2020.02.15
  • Accepted : 2020.03.02
  • Published : 2020.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate validity, reliability and reproducibility of tooth width (TW), arch length (AL) and arch length discrepancy (ALD) measured on a digital model taken via 3-dimensional model scanner and intraoral scanner compared to a plaster model. A total of 30 patients aged 12 to 18 were eligible for the study. 3 types of models were acquired from each patient: a conventional plaster model (P), a model scanned digital model (MSD) taken via Freedom UHD® and an intraoral scanned digital model (ISD) taken via CS3600® in-vivo. The reliability of TW and AL in each group was evaluated using Pearson's correlation coefficient, while the reproducibility was evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficient. The validity of space analysis was assessed by paired t-test. As a result, all measurements of P, MSD and ISD groups showed favorable reliability and reproducibility. Most of measurements for space analysis in MSD group and TW in ISD group also presented high validity. AL and ALD presented statistically significant difference between P and ISD group. The validity of measurements of space analysis in ISD group was short in doubt to valid, but clinically acceptable. Both MSD and ISD are clinically acceptable to use for space analysis but clinician should be aware that errors can be found using a digital model.

이 연구는 모델 스캐너로 석고 모형을 스캔한 디지털 모형(Model scanned digital model, MSD)과 구내 스캐너로 구강을 스캔한 디지털 모형(Intraoral scanned digital model, ISD)에서 계측한 치아 근원심 폭경(Tooth width, TW)과 치열궁 길이(Arch length, AL)의 신뢰도와 재현성, 치열궁 길이 편차(Arch length discrepancy, ALD) 분석의 타당도를 평가하였다. 만 12 - 18세의 남, 여 30명에게 석고 모형, MSD, ISD를 획득하고, 2번 계측한 TW, AL의 신뢰도는 Pearson 상관 분석, 4명의 재현성은 군간 상관 분석 그리고 TW, AL 및 ALD의 타당도는 대응표본 t검정으로 평가하였다. 결과적으로 모든 군에서 계측한 TW, AL는 높은 신뢰도와 재현성을 보였고 MSD군의 ALD분석은 적절한 타당도를 보였다. ISD 군의 TW는 가장 높은 타당도를 보인 반면에, AL와 ALD분석은 유의미하게 짧게 측정되어 낮은 타당도를 보였으므로 임상가는 디지털 모델을 이용하여 공간 분석 시행 시 이를 고려해야 할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Richter AE, Arruda AO, Sohn W, et al. : Incidence of caries lesions among patients treated with comprehensive orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 139:657-664, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.037
  2. Crosby DR, Alexander CG : The occurrence of tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 95:457-461, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90408-3
  3. Schirmer UR, Wiltshire WA : Manual and computer-aided space analysis: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 112:676-680, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70234-8
  4. Motohashi N, Kuroda T : A 3D computer-aided design system applied to diagnosis and treatment planning in orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. Eur J Orthod, 21:263-274, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/21.3.263
  5. Zilberman O, Huggare JA, Parikakis KA : Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod, 73:301-306, 2003.
  6. Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A : Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res, 14:1-16, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01503.x
  7. Rossini G, Parrini S, Debernardi CL, et al. : Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 149:161-170, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.06.029
  8. Tomassetti JJ, Taloumis LJ, Fischer JR, et al. : A comparison of 3 computerized Bolton tooth-size analyses with a commonly used method. Angle Orthod, 71:351-357, 2001.
  9. Santoro M, Galkin S, Cangialosi TJ, et al. : Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 124:101-105, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00152-5
  10. Stevens DR, Flores Mir C, Nebbe B, et al. : 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, 129:794-803, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.08.023
  11. Mullen SR, Martin CA, Gladwin M, et al. : Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 132:346-352, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.044
  12. Goracci C, Franchi L, Ferrari M, et al. : Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod, 38:422-428, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv077
  13. 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, 146:673-682, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023
  14. Jeong ID, Lee JJ, Jeon JH, et al. : Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent, 115:755-759, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.11.007
  15. Camardella LT, Breuning H, de Vasconcellos Vilella O : Accuracy and reproducibility of measurements on plaster models and digital models created using an intraoral scanner. J Orofac Orthop, 78:211-220, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-016-0070-0
  16. Malik J, Rodriguez J, Petridis H, et al. : Comparison of accuracy between a conventional and two digital intraoral impression techniques. Int J Prosthodont, 31:107-113, 2018. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5643
  17. Sfondrini MF, Gandini P, Malfatto M, et al. : Computerized casts for orthodontic purpose using powder-free intraoral scanners: accuracy, execution time, and patient feedback. Biomed Res Int, 2018:4103232, 2018.
  18. Tomita Y, Uechi J, Konno M, et al. : Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plastermodel methods and intraoral scanning. Dent Mater J, 37:628-633, 2018. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-208
  19. Kihara H, Hatakeyama W, Kondo H, et al. : Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review. J Prosthodont Res, 64:109-113, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.07.010
  20. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A : In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent, 115:313-320, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.011
  21. Zhang F, Suh KJ, Lee KM : Validity of intraoral scans compared with plaster models: An in-vivo comparison of dental measurements and 3D surface analysis. PLoS One, 11:e0157713, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157713
  22. Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Thor A, et al. : Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent, 69:110-118, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.12.006
  23. Lee S, Lee JS, Lee KM, et al. : Reproducibility of an intraoral scanner: A comparison between in-vivo and ex-vivo scans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 154:305-310, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.09.022
  24. Jimenez-Gayosso SI, Lara-Carrillo E, Escoffie Ramirez M, et al. : Difference between manual and digital measurements of dental arches of orthodontic patients. Medicine , 97:e10887, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000010887
  25. Mangano A, Beretta M, Mangano F, et al. : Conventional vs digital impressions: acceptability, treatment comfort and stress among young orthodontic patients. Open Dent J, 12:118-124, 2018. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210601812010118
  26. Burhardt L, Livas C, Ren Y, et al. : Treatment comfort, time perception, and preference for conventional and digital impression techniques: A comparative study in young patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 150:261-267, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.12.027
  27. Ting Shu S, Jian S : Intraoral digital impression technique: A review. J Prosthodont, 24:313-321, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12218
  28. Kim EJ, Hwang HS : Reproducibility and accuracy of tooth size measurements obtained by the use of computer. Korean J Orthod, 563-573, 1998.
  29. Flugge TV, Schlager S, Metzger MC, et al. : Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 144:471-478, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017
  30. Gul Amuk N, Karsli E, Kurt G : Comparison of dental measurements between conventional plaster models, digital models obtained by impression scanning and plaster model scanning. Int Orthod, 17:151-158, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2019.01.014