The Journal of the Korean dental association (대한치과의사협회지)

The Korean Dental Association (대한치과의사협회)
권호 표지

Accuracy of inter-arch measurements performed on digital models generated using two types of intraoral scanners: Ex vivo study

  • Yoo, Jo-Kwang (Department of Orthodontics, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kang, Yoon-Koo (Department of Orthodontics, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Su-Jung (Department of Orthodontics, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Seong-Hun (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Moon, Cheol-Hyun (Department of Orthodontics, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2019.10.25
  • Accepted : 2020.01.14
  • Published : 2020.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the inter-arch relationship of digital models generated using two types of intraoral scanners. Methods: In total, 34 plaster model samples were used. Two corresponding digital models were created using two types of intraoral scanners. A total of 15 variables were measured. The plaster model was directly measured using a digital caliper, while the digital models were measured using a software. The accuracy of the measurements was evaluated using repeated measures analysis of variance and the Friedman test. Results: Among the 15 measurements, 6 measurements[Overjet, Overbite, DZ_11-41 (Distance between the gingival zenith of maxillary right central incisor and mandibular right central incisor), DZ_16-46 (Distance between the gingival zenith of maxillary right first molar and mandibular right first molar), DZ_13-33 (Distance between the gingival zenith of maxillary right canine and mandibular left canine), and DZ_23-43 (Distance between the gingival zenith of maxillary left canine and mandibular right canine)]showed statistically significant differences, with DZ_23-43 showing the largest difference of 0.18 mm. The other measurements showed no statistically significant differences. Conclusions: Regardless of the type of scanner used for preparation, digital models can be used as clinically acceptable alternatives to conventional plaster models.

Keywords

References

  1. 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
  2. Pacheco-Pereira C, De Luca Canto G, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Variation of orthodontic treatment decision-making based on dental model type: A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2015;85:501-9.
  3. 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
  4. Sweeney S, Smith DK, Messersmith M. Comparison of 5 types of interocclusal recording materials on the accuracy of articulation of digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;148:245-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.04.025
  5. Kihara T, Yoshimi Y, Taji T, Murayama T, Tanimoto K, Nikawa H. Accuracy of a three-dimensional dentition model digitized from an interocclusal record using a non-contact surface scanner. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:435-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv065
  6. Aragon ML, Pontes LF, Bichara LM, Flores-Mir C, Normando D. Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:429-34. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjw033
  7. 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
  8. Kim J, Heo G, Lagravere MO. Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to plaster models and cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 2014;84:443-50. https://doi.org/10.2319/051213-365.1
  9. Burzynski JA, Firestone AR, Beck FM, Fields HW Jr, Deguchi T. Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;153:534-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.08.017
  10. Grewal B, Lee RT, Zou L, Johal A. Royal London space analysis: plaster versus digital model assessment. Eur J Orthod 2017;39:320-5.
  11. Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:422-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv077
  12. Anh JW, Park JM, Chun YS, Kim M, Kim M. A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction. Korean J Orthod 2016;46:3-12. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.1.3
  13. Cuperus AM, Harms MC, Rangel FA, Bronkhorst EM, Schols JG, Breuning KH. Dental models made with an intraoral scanner: a validation study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142:308-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.03.031
  14. Darroudi AM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Ongkosuwito EM, Suttorp CM, Bronkhorst EM, Breuning KH. Accuracy of a computed tomography scanning procedure to manufacture digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:995-1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.12.013
  15. Kiviahde H, Bukovac L, Jussila P, Pesonen P, Sipila K, Raustia A, Pirttiniemi P. Inter-arch digital model vs. manual cast measurements: Accuracy and reliability. Cranio. 2018;36:222-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08869634.2017.1344811
  16. Wan Hassan WN, Othman SA, Chan CS, Ahmad R, Ali SN, Abd Rohim A. Assessing agreement in measurements of orthodontic study models: Digital caliper on plaster models vs 3-dimensional software on models scanned by structured-light scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150:886-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.04.021
  17. Mack S, Bonilla T, English JD, Cozad B, Akyalcin S. Accuracy of 3-dimensional curvilinear measurements on digital models with intraoral scanners. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;152:420-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.05.011
  18. Yoon JH, Yu HS, Choi Y, Choi TH, Choi SH, Cha JY. Model Analysis of Digital Models in Moderate to Severe Crowding: In Vivo Validation and Clinical Application. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:8414605.
  19. Koretsi V, Tingelhoff L, Proff P, Kirschneck C. Intra-observer reliability and agreement of manual and digital orthodontic model analysis. Eur J Orthod 2018;40:52-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjx040
  20. 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
  21. Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. New York: Interscience Publications; 1940.
  22. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999;8:135-60. https://doi.org/10.1191/096228099673819272
  23. Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi CL. Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;149:161-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.06.029
  24. Porter JL, Carrico CK, Lindauer SJ, Tufekci E. Comparison of intraoral and extraoral scanners on the accuracy of digital model articulation. J Orthod 2018;45:275-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/14653125.2018.1500773
  25. Kong KA. Statistical methods: reliability assessment and method comparison. Ewha Med J 2017;40:9-16. https://doi.org/10.12771/emj.2017.40.1.9
  26. Dalsun Yun, Dong-Soon Choi, Insan Jang, Bong-Kuen Cha. Clinical application of an intraoral scanner for serial evaluation of orthodontic tooth movement: A preliminary study. Korean J Orthod. 2018;48(4):262-7. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2018.48.4.262