Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.2.69

Accuracy and precision of polyurethane dental arch models fabricated using a three-dimensional subtractive rapid prototyping method with an intraoral scanning technique  

Kim, Jae-Hong (Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University)
Kim, Ki-Baek (Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University)
Kim, Woong-Chul (Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University)
Kim, Ji-Hwan (Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University)
Kim, Hae-Young (Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University)
Publication Information
The korean journal of orthodontics / v.44, no.2, 2014 , pp. 69-76 More about this Journal
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and precision of polyurethane (PUT) dental arch models fabricated using a three-dimensional (3D) subtractive rapid prototyping (RP) method with an intraoral scanning technique by comparing linear measurements obtained from PUT models and conventional plaster models. Methods: Ten plaster models were duplicated using a selected standard master model and conventional impression, and 10 PUT models were duplicated using the 3D subtractive RP technique with an oral scanner. Six linear measurements were evaluated in terms of x, y, and z-axes using a non-contact white light scanner. Accuracy was assessed using mean differences between two measurements, and precision was examined using four quantitative methods and the Bland-Altman graphical method. Repeatability was evaluated in terms of intra-examiner variability, and reproducibility was assessed in terms of interexaminer and inter-method variability. Results: The mean difference between plaster models and PUT models ranged from 0.07 mm to 0.33 mm. Relative measurement errors ranged from 2.2% to 7.6% and intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.93 to 0.96, when comparing plaster models and PUT models. The Bland-Altman plot showed good agreement. Conclusions: The accuracy and precision of PUT dental models for evaluating the performance of oral scanner and subtractive RP technology was acceptable. Because of the recent improvements in block material and computerized numeric control milling machines, the subtractive RP method may be a good choice for dental arch models.
Keywords
Three-dimensional subtractive rapid prototyping; Intraoral scanning; Accuracy; Precision;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Linnet K. Limitations of the paired t-test for evaluation of method comparison data. Clin Chem 1999;45:314-5.
2 Dalstra M, Melsen B. From alginate impressions to digital virtual models: accuracy and reproducibility. J Orthod 2009;36:36-41.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Mok KH, Cooke MS. Space analysis: a comparison between sonic digitization (DigiGraph Workstation) and the digital caliper. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:653-61.
4 Asquith J, Gillgrass T, Mossey P. Three-dimensional imaging of orthodontic models: a pilot study. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:517-22.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Donatelli RE, Lee SJ. How to report reliability in orthodontic research: Part 1. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:156-61.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Reich S, Uhlen S, Gozdowski S, Lohbauer U. Measurement of cement thickness under lithium disilicate crowns using an impression material technique. Clin Oral Investig 2011;15:521-6.   DOI
7 Birnbaum NS, Aaronson HB. Dental impressions using 3D digital scanners: virtual becomes reality. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2008;29:494, 496,498-505.
8 Fleiss JL. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1986.p.76-8.
9 BeGole EA. Statistics for the orthodontist. In: Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, eds. Orthodontics: current principles and techniques. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2000. p. 339-52.
10 Klein HM, Schneider W, Alzen G, Voy ED, Günther RW. Pediatric craniofacial surgery: comparison of milling and stereolithography for 3D model manufacturing. Pediatr Radiol 1992;22:458-60.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Petrzelka JE, Frank MC. Advanced process planning for subtractive rapid prototyping. Rapid Prototyping J 2010;16:216-24.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Mullen SR, Martin CA, Ngan P, Gladwin M. Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:346-52.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Watanabe-Kanno GA, Abrão J, Miasiro Junior H, Sánchez-Ayala A, Lagravère MO. Reproducibility, reliability and validity of measurements obtained from Cecile3 digital models. Braz Oral Res 2009;23:288-95.   DOI
15 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 2009;136:16.e1-4.
16 Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R, Zhurov AI. A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod 2008;35:191-201.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Creed B, Kau CH, English JD, Xia JJ, Lee RP. A comparison of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained from cone beam computerized tomography images and digital models. Semin Orthod 2011;17:49-56.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Alcan T, Ceylanoğlu C, Baysal B. The relationship between digital model accuracy and time-dependent deformation of alginate impressions. Angle Orthod 2009;79:30-6.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.; 1940. p. 122-32.
20 Henriksen M, Lund H, Moe-Nilssen R, Bliddal H, Danneskiod-Samsøe B. Test-retest reliability of trunk accelerometric gait analysis. Gait Posture 2004;19:288-97.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Bland JM. Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-10.
22 Henkel S. A better first impression: manufacturing dental restorations using impressions. J Dent Technology 2008;13-6.
23 Jones P. The iTero optical scanner for use with Invisalign: A descriptive review. Dent Implantol Update2008;19:1-4.
24 Barker TM, Earwaker WJ, Lisle DA. Accuracy of stereolithographic models of human anatomy. Australas Radiol 1994;38:106-11.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Kragskov J, Sindet-Pedersen S, Gyldensted C, Jensen KL. A comparison of three-dimensional computed tomography scans and stereolithographic models for evaluation of craniofacial anomalies. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:402-11.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Lill W, Solar P, Ulm C, Watzek G, Blahout R, Matejka M. Reproducibility of three-dimensional CT-assisted model production in the maxillofacial area. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992;30:233-6.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:101-5.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Quimby ML, Vig KW, Rashid RG, Firestone AR. The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. Angle Orthod 2004;74:298-303.
30 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 Orthod2003;73:301-6.