Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5933/JKAPD.2022.49.1.14

Validity of Arch Relationship Measurements in Digital Dental Models  

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)
Publication Information
Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry / v.49, no.1, 2022 , pp. 14-24 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
Intraoral scanner; Digital model; Digital measurement; Bolton ratio; Overjet; Overbite;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 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
2 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.   DOI
3 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.   DOI
4 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.   DOI
5 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.   DOI
6 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
7 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.
8 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.   DOI
9 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.   DOI
10 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.   DOI
11 Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G : Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis, 40:171-178, 1987.   DOI
12 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.   DOI
13 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
14 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.
15 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.   DOI
16 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.   DOI
17 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.   DOI
18 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
19 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.   DOI
20 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.   DOI
21 Houston WJ : The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod, 83:382-390, 1983.   DOI
22 Hacker T, Heydecke G, Reissmann DR : Impact of procedures during prosthodontic treatment on patients' perceived burdens. J Dent, 43:51-57, 2015.   DOI
23 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
24 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.
25 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.   DOI
26 Beyron HL : Occlusal changes in adult dentition. J Am Dent Assoc, 48:674-686, 1954.   DOI
27 Foster TD, Menezes DM : The assessment of occlusal features for public health planning purposes. Am J Orthod, 69:83-90, 1976.   DOI
28 Kinaan BK : Overjet and overbite distribution and correlation: a comparative epidemiological English-Iraqi study. Br J Orthod, 13:79-86, 1986.   DOI
29 Sharma R, Kumar S, Singla A : Prevalence of tooth size discrepancy among North Indian orthodontic patients. Contemp Clin Dent, 2:170-175, 2011.   DOI
30 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.   DOI
31 Davidowitz G, Kotick PG : The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am, 55:559-570, ix, 2011.   DOI
32 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.   DOI
33 Yilmaz H, Aydin MN : Digital versus conventional impression method in children: Comfort, preference and time. Int J Paediatr Dent, 29:728-735, 2019.   DOI
34 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
35 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.   DOI
36 Othman SA, Harradine NW : Tooth-size discrepancy and Bolton's ratios: a literature review. J Orthod, 33:45-51; discussion 29, 2006.   DOI
37 Rekow ED : Dental CAD-CAM systems. What is the state of the art? J Am Dent Assoc, 122:42-48, 1991.   DOI