A comparison between dental measurements taken from CBCT models and those taken from a digital method.

The aims of the study were to assess speed, reliability, accuracy, and reproducibility in measuring mesiodistal tooth sizes, bicanine widths, bimolar widths, and arch lengths (ALs) using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and to compare them with the same measurements obtained using a two-dimensional (2D) Digital Method. Plaster study models were made for 27 patients and then digitalized and measured using a 2D Digital Method. CBCTs were undertaken on the same 27 patients using the Dental Picasso Master 3D® and the images obtained were then analysed using the InVivoDental program. The correlation study of the two measuring methods, which were compared by determining the regression parameters and the values of one method as opposed to the other, show how both methods are comparable, although the mean and standard deviation of all the measurements analysed present statistically significant differences for the first upper right premolar, first upper left molar, first lower left premolar, and second lower right premolar, as well for the lower intercanine distance and lower AL. The differences, however, are less than 1 per cent. CBCT digital models are as accurate and reliable as the digital models obtained from plaster casts. The differences existing between both methods are clinically acceptable.

[1]  L. Will,et al.  Accuracy and reliability of linear cephalometric measurements from cone-beam computed tomography scans of a dry human skull. , 2009, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[2]  Allan G Farman,et al.  Accuracy of linear temporomandibular joint measurements with cone beam computed tomography and digital cephalometric radiography. , 2005, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[3]  Chung How Kau,et al.  Evaluation of CBCT digital models and traditional models using the Little's Index. , 2010, The Angle orthodontist.

[4]  Bassam Hassan,et al.  Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. , 2009, European journal of orthodontics.

[5]  Roberto Carrillo,et al.  Accuracy and reliability of tooth and root lengths measured on cone-beam computed tomographs. , 2010, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[6]  Thomas J Cangialosi,et al.  Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. , 2009, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[7]  Janalt Damstra,et al.  Accuracy of linear measurements from cone-beam computed tomography-derived surface models of different voxel sizes. , 2010, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[8]  U Hägg,et al.  Virtual model analysis as an alternative approach to plaster model analysis: reliability and validity. , 2010, European journal of orthodontics.

[9]  R. Cibrián,et al.  Prediction of arch length based on intercanine width. , 2008, European journal of orthodontics.

[10]  John W Ballrick,et al.  Image distortion and spatial resolution of a commercially available cone-beam computed tomography machine. , 2008, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[11]  Manuel O Lagravère,et al.  Three-dimensional accuracy of measurements made with software on cone-beam computed tomography images. , 2008, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[12]  Allan G Farman,et al.  Accuracy of linear measurements from imaging plate and lateral cephalometric images derived from cone-beam computed tomography. , 2007, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[13]  André Mol,et al.  In vivo comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. , 2008, The Angle orthodontist.

[14]  J Martin Palomo,et al.  Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements. , 2009, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[15]  Tianmin Xu,et al.  The validity of in vivo tooth volume determinations from cone-beam computed tomography. , 2010, The Angle orthodontist.

[16]  Danielle R. Periago,et al.  Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. , 2008, The Angle orthodontist.