Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry (대한소아치과학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Validity of Arch Relationship Measurements in Digital Dental Models

디지털 치열 모형에서 악궁 관계 지표 측정의 타당성

  • Ryu, Jiin (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Dental Clinic Center, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital) ;
  • Yang, ByoungEun (Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Hallym University) ;
  • Lee, Hyelim (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Dental Clinic Center, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital)
  • 류지인 (한림대학교 의과대학 한림대학교성심병원 소아치과학교실) ;
  • 양병은 (한림대학교 임상치의학대학원) ;
  • 이혜림 (한림대학교 의과대학 한림대학교성심병원 소아치과학교실)
  • Received : 2021.04.30
  • Accepted : 2021.08.24
  • Published : 2022.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The aim of the present study is to evaluate the validity of orthodontic measurements including tooth width, Bolton ratio, overjet and overbite on the digital dental models. Dental models of the subjects aged 12 to 18 were obtained in 3 different forms, which were conventional stone model, digital model created with Freedom HD model scanner, and digital model produced with CS3600 intraoral scanner. After measurements were made on the models, reliability and reproducibility of the measurements were evaluated by using intraclass correlation coefficient, while validity was assessed with paired t-test. As a result, significant reliability and reproducibility were verified, with intraclass correlation coefficient exceeding 0.750 in all groups. Measurements of the model scanned group showed an adequate validity in overall and anterior Bolton ratio, overjet, and overbite. Intraoral scanned models showed an adequate validity in anterior Bolton ratio, and overjet. Measurement on intraoral scanned digital models can be considered as an alternative for young children who have difficulty in taking impression. Furthermore, careful considerations on measurement error should be made in clinical situations.

이 연구의 목적은 디지털 치열 모형에서 치아 폭경, 볼튼 비율, 수평 피개, 수직 피개를 포함한 교정적 측정의 타당성을 확인하는 것이다. 만 12 - 18세의 환자를 대상으로 세가지 형태의 치열 모형을 획득하였다. 기존의 석고 모형을 형성하였고, DOF freedom HD 모형 스캐너를 통해 디지털 모형으로 변환하였다. 그리고 CS3600 구강 스캐너로 디지털 모형을 형성하였다. 각 모형에서 측정 시행 후, 급내 상관 계수를 통해 계측의 신뢰성과 재현성을 확인하였으며, 대응 표본 t 검정을 사용하여 타당성을 평가하였다. 결과적으로 모든 군에서 급내 상관계수는 0.750을 초과하여 연구자 내 신뢰성과 연구자 간 재현성이 있음을 확인하였다. 모형 스캔한 군은 전체 및 전치 볼튼 비율, 수평 및 수직 피개에서 타당성을 보였다. 구강 스캔한 군은 전치 볼튼 비율, 수평 피개에서 타당성을 보였다. 구강 스캔한 디지털 모형을 이용한 계측은 인상 채득에 어려움이 있는 소아 청소년에게 고려할 수 있는 대안이다. 하지만 임상에서 이를 교정적 분석에 이용할 경우 오차를 고려한 적용이 필요하다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by the Medical Device Technology Development Program funded by the Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy, Republic of Korea.

References

  1. Favaretto M, Shaw D, Elger BS, et al. : Big Data and Digitalization in Dentistry: A Systematic Review of the Ethical Issues. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 17:2495, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072495
  2. Abizadeh N, Moles DR, O'Neill J, Noar JH : Digital versus plaster study models: how accurate and reproducible are they? J Orthod, 39:151-159, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1179/1465312512Z.00000000023
  3. Rheude B, Sadowsky PL, Ferriera A, Jacobson A : An evaluation of the use of digital study models in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Angle Orthod, 75:300-304, 2005.
  4. Whetten JL, Williamson PC, Major PW, et al. : Variations in orthodontic treatment planning decisions of Class II patients between virtual 3-dimensional models and traditional plaster study models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 130:485-491, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.022
  5. Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Major PW, 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
  6. 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
  7. Sousa MV, Vasconcelos EC, Pinzan A, et al. : Accuracy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 142:269-273, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.12.028
  8. Renne W, Ludlow M, Kessler R, et al. : Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent, 118:36-42, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.024
  9. Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Ren Y, et al. : 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, 143:140-147, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.06.018
  10. Roberts CT, Richmond S : The design and analysis of reliability studies for the use of epidemiological and audit indices in orthodontics. Br J Orthod, 24:139-147, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/24.2.139
  11. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G : Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis, 40:171-178, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5
  12. Houston WJ : The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod, 83:382-390, 1983. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(83)90322-6
  13. Beyron HL : Occlusal changes in adult dentition. J Am Dent Assoc, 48:674-686, 1954. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1954.0102
  14. Foster TD, Menezes DM : The assessment of occlusal features for public health planning purposes. Am J Orthod, 69:83-90, 1976. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(76)90100-7
  15. Kinaan BK : Overjet and overbite distribution and correlation: a comparative epidemiological English-Iraqi study. Br J Orthod, 13:79-86, 1986. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.13.2.79
  16. Othman SA, Harradine NW : Tooth-size discrepancy and Bolton's ratios: a literature review. J Orthod, 33:45-51; discussion 29, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531205225021384
  17. Sharma R, Kumar S, Singla A : Prevalence of tooth size discrepancy among North Indian orthodontic patients. Contemp Clin Dent, 2:170-175, 2011. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.86445
  18. Hacker T, Heydecke G, Reissmann DR : Impact of procedures during prosthodontic treatment on patients' perceived burdens. J Dent, 43:51-57, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.10.013
  19. Rekow ED : Dental CAD-CAM systems. What is the state of the art? J Am Dent Assoc, 122:42-48, 1991. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1991.0205
  20. Lambert H, Durand JC, Jacquot B, Fages M : Dental biomaterials for chairside CAD/CAM: State of the art. J Adv Prosthodont, 9:486-495, 2017. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.6.486
  21. Davidowitz G, Kotick PG : The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am, 55:559-570, ix, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2011.02.011
  22. Yilmaz H, Aydin MN : Digital versus conventional impression method in children: Comfort, preference and time. Int J Paediatr Dent, 29:728-735, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12566
  23. 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
  24. Burzynski JA, Firestone AR, Deguchi T, et al. : Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 153:534-541, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.08.017
  25. 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
  26. de Waard O, Rangel FA, Breuning KH, et al. : 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, 146:328-336, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.05.026
  27. Plooij JM, Maal TJ, Berge SJ, et al. : Digital three-dimensional image fusion processes for planning and evaluating orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 40:341-352, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2010.10.013
  28. Lim JH, Park JM, Myung JY, et al. : Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience. J Prosthet Dent, 119:225-232, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.002
  29. Kim J, Park JM, Kim M, et al. : Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent, 116:221-230, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.018
  30. Nagy Z, Simon B, Vag J, et al. : Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method. BMC Oral Health, 20:97, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01090-x
  31. Park GH, Son K, Lee KB : Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete-arch digital scan. J Prosthet Dent, 121:803-810, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.07.014
  32. 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
  33. Santoro M, Ayoub ME, Pardi VA, Cangialosi TJ : Mesiodistal crown dimensions and tooth size discrepancy of the permanent dentition of Dominican Americans. Angle Orthod, 70:303-307, 2000.
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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, 144: 304-310, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.011
  37. Shellhart WC, Lange DW, Kaplan AL, et al. : Reliability of the Bolton tooth-size analysis when applied to crowded dentitions. Angle Orthod, 65:327-334, 1995.