Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry (대한소아치과학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Evaluating Measurements: A Comparative Study of Digital and Plaster Models for Orthodontic Applications in Mixed Dentition

  • Seo Young Shin (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Kyung Hee University Dental Hospital) ;
  • Yong Kwon Chae (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Kyung Hee University Dental Hospital) ;
  • Ko Eun Lee (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Kyung Hee University Dental Hospital) ;
  • Mi Sun Kim (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Ok Hyung Nam (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Kyung Hee University Dental Hospital) ;
  • Hyo-seol Lee (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Kyung Hee University Dental Hospital) ;
  • Sung Chul Choi (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Kyung Hee University Dental Hospital)
  • Received : 2023.11.08
  • Accepted : 2023.11.21
  • Published : 2024.02.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the accuracy of tooth widths, intermolar widths, and arch lengths acquired through two intraoral scanners, including iTero Element Plus Series (Align Technology, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and Trios 4 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), specifically on mixed dentition. A total of 30 subjects were divided into 2 groups, each undergoing both alginate impressions and intraoral scanning using either the iTero or Trios scanner. The plaster models were measured with a caliper, while the digital models were measured virtually. In the iTero group, all tooth width measurements exhibited differences compared to the plaster values, except for maxillary left lateral incisors (p = 0.179), mandibular right (p = 0.285), and left (p = 0.073) central incisors. The Trios group did not display significant differences in any of the tooth width measurements. Intermolar width comparisons for both groups indicated differences, except for mandibular primary canine to primary canine values (p = 0.426) in the iTero group. Regarding arch length, the mandibular anterior, maxillary right, and left arch lengths in the iTero group demonstrated larger caliper values than those of iTero. Conversely, in the Trios group, all parameters showed smaller caliper values, especially in upper anterior, maxillary right, mandibular right, and mandibular left arch lengths with significance (p = 0.027, 0.007, 0.003, and 0.047, respectively). Despite the differences between the two groups, digital models might be clinically suitable alternatives for plaster models. Pediatric dentists should carefully assess these differences, as a comprehensive evaluation would result in precise orthodontic treatment planning and favorable outcomes for young patients with mixed dentition.

Keywords

References

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Bosoni C, Nieri M, Franceschi D, Souki BQ, Franchi L, Giuntini V : Comparison between digital and conventional impression techniques in children on preference, time and comfort: A crossover randomized controlled trial. Orthod Craniofac Res, 26:585-590, 2023.
  5. Dixit UB, Moorthy L : The use of interactive distraction technique to manage gagging during impression taking in children: a single-blind, randomised controlled trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent, 22:219-225, 2021.
  6. 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, 129:794-803, 2006.
  7. Naidu D, Freer TJ : The evidence supporting methods of tooth width measurement: Part II. Digital models and intra-oral scanners. Aust Orthod J, 29:164-169, 2013.
  8. 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, 149:161-170, 2016.
  9. Mangano A, Beretta M, Luongo G, Mangano C, Mangano F : Conventional Vs Digital Impressions: Acceptability, Treatment Comfort and Stress Among Young Orthodontic Patients. Open Dent J, 12:118-124, 2018.
  10. Burhardt L, Livas C, Kerdijk W, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y : 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.
  11. Naidu D, Freer TJ : The evidence supporting methods of tooth width measurement: Part I. Vernier calipers to stereophotogrammetry. Aust Orthod J, 29:159-163, 2013.
  12. Singh S, Saraf BG, Indushekhar KR, Sheoran N : Estimation of the Intercanine Width, Intermolar Width, Arch Length, and Arch Perimeter and Its Comparison in 12-17-year-old Children of Faridabad. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent, 14:369-375, 2021.
  13. Yilmaz H, Aydin MN : Digital versus conventional impression method in children: Comfort, preference and time. Int J Paediatr Dent, 29:728-735, 2019.
  14. Kardach H, Szponar-Zurowska A, Biedziak B : A Comparison of Teeth Measurements on Plaster and Digital Models. J Clin Med, 12:943, 2023.
  15. Gierie WV : Clear aligner therapy: An overview. J Clin Orthod, 52:665-674, 2018.
  16. Hwang HH, Chou CW, Chen YJ, Yao CC : An overview of digital intraoral scanners: Past, present and future-from an orthodontic perspective. Taiwan J Orthodont, 30:148-162, 2018.
  17. Shailendran A, Weir T, Freer E, Kerr B : Accuracy and reliability of tooth widths and Bolton ratios measured by ClinCheck Pro. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 161:65-73, 2022.
  18. Adobes Martin M, Lipani E, Bernes Martinez L, Alvarado Lorenzo A, Aiuto R, Garcovich D : Reliability of Tooth Width Measurements Delivered by the ClinCheck Pro 6.0 Software on Digital Casts: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 19:3581, 2022.
  19. Soto-Alvarez C, Fonseca GM, Viciano J, Aleman I, Rojas-Torres J, Zuniga MH, Lopez-Lazaro S : Reliability, reproducibility and validity of the conventional buccolingual and mesiodistal measurements on 3D dental digital models obtained from intra-oral 3D scanner. Arch Oral Biol, 109:104575, 2020.
  20. Rajshekar M, Julian R, Willams AM, Tennant M, Forrest A, Walsh LJ, Wilson G, Blizzard L : The reliability and validity of measurements of human dental casts made by an intra-oral 3D scanner, with conventional hand-held digital callipers as the comparison measure. Forensic Sci Int, 278:198-204, 2017.
  21. Rosseto MC, Palma FM, Ferreira RI, Pinzan A, Vellini-Ferreira F : Comparative study of dental arch width in plaster models, photocopies and digitized images. Braz Oral Res, 23:190-195, 2009.
  22. Im J, Cha JY, Lee KJ, Yu HS, Hwang CJ : Comparison of virtual and manual tooth setups with digital and plaster models in extraction cases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 145:434-442, 2014.
  23. Watanabe-Kanno GA, Abrao J, Miasiro Junior H, Sanchez-Ayala A, Lagravere MO : Reproducibility, reliability and validity of measurements obtained from Cecile3 digital models. Braz Oral Res, 23:288-295, 2009.
  24. Quimby ML, Vig KW, Rashid RG, Firestone AR : The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. Angle Orthod, 74:298-303, 2004.
  25. 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, 136:16.E1-16, 2009.
  26. Goonewardene RW, Goonewardene MS, Razza JM, Murray K : Accuracy and validity of space analysis and irregularity index measurements using digital models. Aust Orthod J, 24:83-90, 2008.
  27. Mullen SR, Martin CA, Ngan P, Gladwin M : Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 132:346-352, 2007.
  28. 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, 11:90-95, 2008.
  29. Schirmer UR, Wiltshire WA : Manual and computer-aided space analysis: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 112:676-680, 1997.
  30. De Luca Canto G, Pacheco-Pereira C, Lagravere MO, Flores-Mir C, Major PW : Intra-arch dimensional measurement validity of laser-scanned digital dental models compared with the original plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res, 18:65-76, 2015.
  31. 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.
  32. Uysal T, Sari Z : Intermaxillary tooth size discrepancy and mesiodistal crown dimensions for a Turkish population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 128:226-230, 2005.
  33. McNamara JA Jr : Early intervention in the transverse dimension: is it worth the effort? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 121:572-574, 2002.
  34. Grunheid T, Patel N, De Felippe NL, Wey A, Gaillard PR, Larson BE : Accuracy, reproducibility, and time efficiency of dental measurements using different technologies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 145: 157-164, 2014.