바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
 

logo

메뉴

Accuracy of inter-arch measurements performed on digital models generated using two types of intraoral scanners: Ex vivo study

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the inter-arch relationship of digital models generated using two types of intraoral scanners. Methods: In total, 34 plaster model samples were used. Two corresponding digital models were created using two types of intraoral scanners. A total of 15 variables were measured. The plaster model was directly measured using a digital caliper, while the digital models were measured using a software. The accuracy of the measurements was evaluated using repeated measures analysis of variance and the Friedman test. Results: Among the 15 measurements, 6 measurements[Overjet, Overbite, DZ_11-41 (Distance between the gingival zenith of maxillary right central incisor and mandibular right central incisor), DZ_16-46 (Distance between the gingival zenith of maxillary right first molar and mandibular right first molar), DZ_13-33 (Distance between the gingival zenith of maxillary right canine and mandibular left canine), and DZ_23-43 (Distance between the gingival zenith of maxillary left canine and mandibular right canine)]showed statistically significant differences, with DZ_23-43 showing the largest difference of 0.18 mm. The other measurements showed no statistically significant differences. Conclusions: Regardless of the type of scanner used for preparation, digital models can be used as clinically acceptable alternatives to conventional plaster models.

keywords
Digital models, 3D intraoral scanner, Inter-arch measurements

참고문헌

1.

1. Horton HM, Miller JR, Gaillard PR, Larson BE. Technique comparison for efficient orthodontic tooth measurements using digital models. Angle Orthod 2010;80:254-61.

2.

2. Pacheco-Pereira C, De Luca Canto G, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Variation of orthodontic treatment decision-making based on dental model type: A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2015;85:501-9.

3.

3. Reuschl RP, Heuer W, Stiesch M, Wenzel D, Dittmer MP. Reliability and validity of measurements on digital study models and plaster models. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:22-6.

4.

4. Sweeney S, Smith DK, Messersmith M. Comparison of 5 types of interocclusal recording materials on the accuracy of articulation of digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;148:245-52.

5.

5. Kihara T, Yoshimi Y, Taji T, Murayama T, Tanimoto K, Nikawa H. Accuracy of a three-dimensional dentition model digitized from an interocclusal record using a non-contact surface scanner. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:435-9.

6.

6. Aragon ML, Pontes LF, Bichara LM, Flores-Mir C, Normando D. Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38:429-34.

7.

7. Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 2011;14:1-16.

8.

8. Kim J, Heo G, Lagravere MO. Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to plaster models and cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 2014;84:443-50.

9.

9. Burzynski JA, Firestone AR, Beck FM, Fields HW Jr, Deguchi T. Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;153:534-41.

10.

10. Grewal B, Lee RT, Zou L, Johal A. Royal London space analysis: plaster versus digital model assessment. Eur J Orthod 2017;39:320-5.

11.

11. Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:422-8.

12.

12. Anh JW, Park JM, Chun YS, Kim M, Kim M. A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction. Korean J Orthod 2016;46:3-12.

13.

13. 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.

14.

14. Darroudi AM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Ongkosuwito EM, Suttorp CM, Bronkhorst EM, Breuning KH. Accuracy of a computed tomography scanning procedure to manufacture digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:995-1003.

15.

15. Kiviahde H, Bukovac L, Jussila P, Pesonen P, Sipilä K, Raustia A, Pirttiniemi P. Inter-arch digital model vs. manual cast measurements: Accuracy and reliability. Cranio. 2018;36:222-7.

16.

16. Wan Hassan WN, Othman SA, Chan CS, Ahmad R, Ali SN, Abd Rohim A. Assessing agreement in measurements of orthodontic study models: Digital caliper on plaster models vs 3-dimensional software on models scanned by structured-light scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150:886-95.

17.

17. Mack S, Bonilla T, English JD, Cozad B, Akyalcin S. Accuracy of 3-dimensional curvilinear measurements on digital models with intraoral scanners. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;152:420-5.

18.

18. Yoon JH, Yu HS, Choi Y, Choi TH, Choi SH, Cha JY. Model Analysis of Digital Models in Moderate to Severe Crowding: In Vivo Validation and Clinical Application. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:8414605.

19.

19. Koretsi V, Tingelhoff L, Proff P, Kirschneck C. Intra-observer reliability and agreement of manual and digital orthodontic model analysis. Eur J Orthod 2018;40:52-7.

20.

20. Reuschl RP, Heuer W, Stiesch M, Wenzel D, Dittmer MP. Reliability and validity of measurements on digital study models and plaster models. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:22-6.

21.

21. Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. New York: Interscience Publications; 1940.

22.

22. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999;8:135-60.

23.

23. 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 2016;149:161-70.

24.

24. Porter JL, Carrico CK, Lindauer SJ, Tüfekçi E. Comparison of intraoral and extraoral scanners on the accuracy of digital model articulation. J Orthod 2018;45:275-82.

25.

25. Kong KA. Statistical methods: reliability assessment and method comparison. Ewha Med J 2017;40:9-16.

26.

26. Dalsun Yun, Dong-Soon Choi, Insan Jang, Bong-Kuen Cha. Clinical application of an intraoral scanner for serial evaluation of orthodontic tooth movement: A preliminary study. Korean J Orthod. 2018;48(4):262–7.

logo