Comparison of accuracy of mesiodistal tooth measurements made in conventional study models and digital models obtained from intraoral scan and desktop scan of study models

Objective: To compare the measured values obtained from the plaster model, digital models created by scanning the plaster models and direct intraoral scanning with the values obtained from direct intraoral measurements. Design: This was a prospective clinical study. Setting: The study was conducted in Department of Orthodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Tamil Nadu, India. Participants: Ten patients before the start of orthodontic treatment were selected for the study. Methods: A computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD-CAM) system is an advanced technology that is being adopted in the field of orthodontics for diagnosis, treatment planning and documentation of patient records. Mesiodistal tooth width measurements of first premolars, canines, lateral incisors and central incisors, and transverse width measurement from mesial pit of right first premolar to mesial pit of left first premolar in both maxilla and mandible were obtained from direct intraoral measurement (gold standard), study model obtained from alginate impression, intraoral scanned image, and desktop scanned image of the study model. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA was performed to find the difference in mean among the groups. Results: A P value > 0.05 was obtained in ANOVA indicating that there is no statistically significant difference in the measurements obtained by either of the methods. Conclusion: Conventional stone models and digital models obtained from intraoral scan and desktop scanning of plaster models are clinically reliable as the variations in measurements obtained from these methods were clinically negligible.

[1]  Jae Hoon Lee,et al.  Evaluating the marginal fit of zirconia copings with digital impressions with an intraoral digital scanner. , 2014, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[2]  A. Johal,et al.  Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. , 2011, Orthodontics & craniofacial research.

[3]  W T SWEENEY,et al.  Dimensional Changes in Dental Stone and Plaster , 1950, Journal of dental research.

[4]  P. Buschang,et al.  Reliability and validity of intraoral and extraoral scanners , 2015, Progress in orthodontics.

[5]  A. Jacobson,et al.  An evaluation of the use of digital study models in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[6]  D. Schneider,et al.  Long-term clinical results of chairside Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays: a case series. , 2008, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[7]  Thomas J Cangialosi,et al.  Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. , 2003, 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]  Matthew J. Peluso,et al.  Digital models: An introduction , 2004 .

[9]  P. Proff,et al.  Reliability and intra-examiner agreement of orthodontic model analysis with a digital caliper on plaster and printed dental models , 2018, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[10]  Anssi J. Mäkynen,et al.  Recent advances in dental optics – Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry , 2014 .

[11]  P. Major,et al.  Intra-arch dimensional measurement validity of laser-scanned digital dental models compared with the original plaster models: a systematic review. , 2015, Orthodontics & craniofacial research.

[12]  M. Iijima,et al.  Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral scanning. , 2018, Dental materials journal.

[13]  T. Grünheid,et al.  Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. , 2014, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[14]  Budi Kusnoto,et al.  3D Scanning, Imaging, and Printing in Orthodontics , 2015 .

[15]  Christian Kirschneck,et al.  Conformity, reliability and validity of digital dental models created by clinical intraoral scanning and extraoral plaster model digitization workflows , 2018, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[16]  Neal D Kravitz,et al.  Intraoral digital scanners. , 2014, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[17]  Yijin Ren,et al.  Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions. , 2013, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[18]  Carsten Lippold,et al.  Facial landmark localization by curvature maps and profile analysis , 2014, Head & Face Medicine.

[19]  C. Moorrees,et al.  Mesiodistal Crown Diameters of the Deciduous and Permanent Teeth in Individuals , 1957, Journal of dental research.

[20]  Carsten Lippold,et al.  Methodological accuracy of digital and manual model analysis in orthodontics - A retrospective clinical study , 2015, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[21]  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.