Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5933/JKAPD.2020.47.2.176

Validity, Reliability and Reproducibility of Space Analysis using Digital Model taken via Model Scanner and Intraoral Scanner: An In vivo Study  

Park, Seohyun (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Dental Clinic Center, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital)
Kim, Jongsoo (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Dankook University)
Oh, Sohee (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Dental Clinic Center, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital)
Publication Information
Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry / v.47, no.2, 2020 , pp. 176-187 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate validity, reliability and reproducibility of tooth width (TW), arch length (AL) and arch length discrepancy (ALD) measured on a digital model taken via 3-dimensional model scanner and intraoral scanner compared to a plaster model. A total of 30 patients aged 12 to 18 were eligible for the study. 3 types of models were acquired from each patient: a conventional plaster model (P), a model scanned digital model (MSD) taken via Freedom UHD® and an intraoral scanned digital model (ISD) taken via CS3600® in-vivo. The reliability of TW and AL in each group was evaluated using Pearson's correlation coefficient, while the reproducibility was evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficient. The validity of space analysis was assessed by paired t-test. As a result, all measurements of P, MSD and ISD groups showed favorable reliability and reproducibility. Most of measurements for space analysis in MSD group and TW in ISD group also presented high validity. AL and ALD presented statistically significant difference between P and ISD group. The validity of measurements of space analysis in ISD group was short in doubt to valid, but clinically acceptable. Both MSD and ISD are clinically acceptable to use for space analysis but clinician should be aware that errors can be found using a digital model.
Keywords
Model scanned digital model; Intraoral scanned digital model; Digital measurement; Tooth width; Arch length; Arch length discrepancy;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Mangano A, Beretta M, Mangano F, et al. : Conventional vs digital impressions: acceptability, treatment comfort and stress among young orthodontic patients. Open Dent J, 12:118-124, 2018.   DOI
2 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.   DOI
3 Ting Shu S, Jian S : Intraoral digital impression technique: A review. J Prosthodont, 24:313-321, 2015.   DOI
4 Kim EJ, Hwang HS : Reproducibility and accuracy of tooth size measurements obtained by the use of computer. Korean J Orthod, 563-573, 1998.
5 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.   DOI
6 Gul Amuk N, Karsli E, Kurt G : Comparison of dental measurements between conventional plaster models, digital models obtained by impression scanning and plaster model scanning. Int Orthod, 17:151-158, 2019.   DOI
7 Richter AE, Arruda AO, Sohn W, et al. : Incidence of caries lesions among patients treated with comprehensive orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 139:657-664, 2011.   DOI
8 Motohashi N, Kuroda T : A 3D computer-aided design system applied to diagnosis and treatment planning in orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. Eur J Orthod, 21:263-274, 1999.   DOI
9 Crosby DR, Alexander CG : The occurrence of tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 95:457-461, 1989.   DOI
10 Schirmer UR, Wiltshire WA : Manual and computer-aided space analysis: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 112:676-680, 1997.   DOI
11 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.
12 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.   DOI
13 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.   DOI
14 Tomassetti JJ, Taloumis LJ, Fischer JR, et al. : A comparison of 3 computerized Bolton tooth-size analyses with a commonly used method. Angle Orthod, 71:351-357, 2001.
15 Santoro M, Galkin S, Cangialosi TJ, et al. : Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 124:101-105, 2003.   DOI
16 Jeong ID, Lee JJ, Jeon JH, et al. : Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent, 115:755-759, 2016.   DOI
17 Stevens DR, Flores Mir C, Nebbe B, 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.   DOI
18 Mullen SR, Martin CA, Gladwin M, et al. : Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 132:346-352, 2007.   DOI
19 Goracci C, Franchi L, Ferrari M, et al. : Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod, 38:422-428, 2016.   DOI
20 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.   DOI
21 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.   DOI
22 Malik J, Rodriguez J, Petridis H, et al. : Comparison of accuracy between a conventional and two digital intraoral impression techniques. Int J Prosthodont, 31:107-113, 2018.   DOI
23 Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A : In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent, 115:313-320, 2016.   DOI
24 Sfondrini MF, Gandini P, Malfatto M, et al. : Computerized casts for orthodontic purpose using powder-free intraoral scanners: accuracy, execution time, and patient feedback. Biomed Res Int, 2018:4103232, 2018.
25 Tomita Y, Uechi J, Konno M, et al. : Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plastermodel methods and intraoral scanning. Dent Mater J, 37:628-633, 2018.   DOI
26 Kihara H, Hatakeyama W, Kondo H, et al. : Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review. J Prosthodont Res, 64:109-113, 2020.   DOI
27 Zhang F, Suh KJ, Lee KM : Validity of intraoral scans compared with plaster models: An in-vivo comparison of dental measurements and 3D surface analysis. PLoS One, 11:e0157713, 2016.   DOI
28 Jimenez-Gayosso SI, Lara-Carrillo E, Escoffie Ramirez M, et al. : Difference between manual and digital measurements of dental arches of orthodontic patients. Medicine , 97:e10887, 2018.   DOI
29 Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Thor A, et al. : Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent, 69:110-118, 2018.   DOI
30 Lee S, Lee JS, Lee KM, et al. : Reproducibility of an intraoral scanner: A comparison between in-vivo and ex-vivo scans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 154:305-310, 2018.   DOI