대한치과교정학회지 (The korean journal of orthodontics)

  • 제52권1호
  • /
  • Pages.20-28
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2234-7518(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-372X(eISSN)
대한치과교정학회 (The Korean Association Of Orthodontists)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of accuracy of 3-dimensional printed dental models in reproducing intermaxillary relational measurements: Based on inter-operator differences

  • Choi, Won-joon (Department of Medicine, Gachon University Graduate School) ;
  • Lee, Su-jung (Department of Medicine, Gachon University Graduate School) ;
  • Moon, Cheol-Hyun (Department of Orthodontics, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2021.02.19
  • 심사 : 2021.07.21
  • 발행 : 2022.01.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: Although, digital models have recently been used in orthodontic clinics, physical models are still needed for a multitude of reasons. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the printed models can replace the plaster models by evaluating their accuracy in reproducing intermaxillary relationships and by appraising the clinicians' ability to measure the printed models. Methods: Twenty sets of patients' plaster models with well-established occlusal relationships were selected. Models were scanned using an intraoral scanner (Trios 3, 3Shape Dental System) by a single operator. Printed models were made with ZMD-1000B light-curing resin using the stereolithography method 3-dimensional printer. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility were evaluated using measurements obtained by three operators. Results: In evaluation of validity, all items showed no significant differences between measurements taken from plaster and printed models. In evaluation for reliability, significant differences were found in the distance between the gingival zeniths of #23-#33 (DZL_3) for the plaster models and at #17-#43 (DZCM_1) for the printed models. In evaluation for reproducibility, the plaster models showed significant differences between operators at midline, and printed models showed significant differences at 7 measurements including #17-#47 (DZR_7). Conclusions: The validity and reliability of intermaxillary relationships as determined by the printed model were clinically acceptable, but the evaluation of reproducibility revealed significant inter-operator differences. To use printed models as substitutes for plaster models, additional studies on their accuracies in measuring intermaxillary relationship are required.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bell A, Ayoub AF, Siebert P. Assessment of the accuracy of a three-dimensional imaging system for archiving dental study models. J Orthod 2003;30:219-23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/30.3.219
  2. Council of Faculty of Orthodontics. Textbook of orthodontics. 2nd ed. Seoul: DaehanNarae Publishing Inc.; 2006. p. 170-2.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Enforcement Regulation of the Medical Law, Korea. Article 15 [Internet]. Ministry of Health and Welfare; 2015 [updated 2016 Dec 29; cited 2020 Mar 2]. Available from: https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsInfoP.do?efYd=20210301&lsiSeq=196454#0000.
  6. Korean Association of Orthodontists. Legal advice no. 324, 492 [Internet]. Korean Association of Orthodontists [updated 2018 Aug 1; cited 2020 Mar 2]. Available from: https://www.kao.or.kr/board/list.html?code=lawfirm.
  7. Mizrahi E. Risk management in clinical practice. Part 7. Dento-legal aspects of orthodontic practice. Br Dent J 2010;209:381-90. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.926
  8. Charangowda BK. Dental records: an overview. J Forensic Dent Sci 2010;2:5-10. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-2948.71050
  9. 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
  10. Hazeveld A, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y. Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;145:108-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.05.011
  11. Wan Hassan WN, Yusoff Y, Mardi NA. Comparison of reconstructed rapid prototyping models produced by 3-dimensional printing and conventional stone models with different degrees of crowding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:209-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.08.019
  12. Camardella LT, de Vasconcellos Vilella O, Breuning H. Accuracy of printed dental models made with 2 prototype technologies and different designs of model bases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:1178-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.03.012
  13. Yourtee D, Emery J, Smith RE, Hodgson B. Stereolithographic models of biopolymers. J Mol Graph Model 2000;18:26-8, 59-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1093-3263(00)00029-2
  14. Raju BS, Chandrashekar U, Drakshayani DN, Chockalingam K. Determining the influence of layer thickness for rapid prototyping with Stereolithography (SLA) process. Int J Eng Sci Technol 2010;2:3199-205.
  15. 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
  16. Brown GB, Currier GF, Kadioglu O, Kierl JP. Accuracy of 3-dimensional printed dental models reconstructed from digital intraoral impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;154:733-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.06.009
  17. 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
  18. Loflin WA, English JD, Borders C, Harris LM, Moon A, Holland JN, et al. Effect of print layer height on the assessment of 3D-printed models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2019;156:283-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.02.013
  19. Naidu D, Freer TJ. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: a comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:304-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.011
  20. 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
  21. Camardella LT, Ongkosuwito EM, Penning EW, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Vilella OV, Breuning KH. Accuracy and reliability of measurements performed using two different software programs on digital models generated using laser and computed tomography plaster model scanners. Korean J Orthod 2020;50:13-25. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2020.50.1.13
  22. 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
  23. Yoo JK, Kang YK, Lee SJ, Kim SH, Moon CH. Accuracy of inter-arch measurements performed on digital models generated using two types of intraoral scanners: ex vivo study. J Korean Dent Assoc 2020;58:194-205. https://doi.org/10.22974/JKDA.2020.58.4.001
  24. Wesemann C, Muallah J, Mah J, Bumann A. Accuracy and efficiency of full-arch digitalization and 3D printing: a comparison between desktop model scanners, an intraoral scanner, a CBCT model scan, and stereolithographic 3D printing. Quintessence Int 2017;48:41-50.
  25. Saleh WK, Ariffin E, Sherriff M, Bister D. Accuracy and reproducibility of linear measurements of resin, plaster, digital and printed study-models. J Orthod 2015;42:301-6. https://doi.org/10.1179/1465313315Y.0000000016
  26. Hayashi K, Sachdeva AU, Saitoh S, Lee SP, Kubota T, Mizoguchi I. Assessment of the accuracy and reliability of new 3-dimensional scanning devices. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:619-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.021
  27. Sherman SL, Kadioglu O, Currier GF, Kierl JP, Li J. Accuracy of digital light processing printing of 3-dimensional dental models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020;157:422-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.10.012
  28. American Board of Orthodontics. Digital model and 3D printing requirements [Internet]. American Board of Orthodontics; 2013 [updated 2016 Jun 30; cited 2019 Nov 11]. Available from: https://www.americanboardortho.com/media/1157/abo-digital-model-requirements.pdf.
  29. Camardella LT, Vilella OV, van Hezel MM, Breuning KH. Accuracy of stereolithographically printed digital models compared to plaster models. J Orofac Orthop 2017;78:394-402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-017-0093-1
  30. Rebong RE, Stewart KT, Utreja A, Ghoneima AA. Accuracy of three-dimensional dental resin models created by fused deposition modeling, stereolithography, and Polyjet prototype technologies: a comparative study. Angle Orthod 2018;88:363-9. https://doi.org/10.2319/071117-460.1
  31. 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
  32. Westerlund A, Tancredi W, Ransjo M, Bresin A, Psonis S, Torgersson O. Digital casts in orthodontics: a comparison of 4 software systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;147:509-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.11.020