Evaluation of CBCT digital models and traditional models using the Little's Index.

OBJECTIVE To determine if measurements obtained from digital models from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were comparable to the traditional method of digital study models by impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS Digital models of 30 subjects were used. InVivoDental (Anatomage, San Jose, Calif) software was used to analyze CBCT scans taken by a Galileos cone beam scanner (Sirona, Charlotte, NC) with a field of view of 15 x 15 x 15 cm(3) and a voxel resolution of 0.125 mm. OrthoCAD (Cadent, Fairview, NJ) software was used to analyze impression scans of patients at different stages of orthodontic treatment. Impressions were taken using alginate and were mailed to OrthoCAD for digital conversion. The scans were then electronically returned in digital format for analysis. RESULTS The maxillary mean scores for the Little's Index were 9.65 mm for digital models and 8.87 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The mandibular mean scores for the Little's Index were 6.41 mm for digital models and 6.27 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The mean overjet measurements were 3.32 mm for digital models and 3.52 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The overbite measurements were 2.29 mm for digital models and 2.26 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The paired t-test showed no statistical significance between the differences in all measurements. CONCLUSIONS CBCT digital models are as accurate as OrthoCAD digital models in making linear measurements for overjet, overbite, and crowding measurements.

[1]  Oded Zilberman,et al.  Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[2]  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.

[3]  L. Joffe,et al.  Current Products and Practices OrthoCAD™: Digital Models for a Digital Era , 2004 .

[4]  Allen R Firestone,et al.  The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[5]  Budi Kusnoto,et al.  Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts. , 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.

[6]  Thomas J Cangialosi,et al.  Evaluation of the accuracy of digital model analysis for the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system for dental casts. , 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.

[7]  Ulrich Wolf,et al.  Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. , 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.

[8]  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.

[9]  M. Hans,et al.  Evaluation of a software program for applying the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system to digital casts. , 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.

[10]  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.

[11]  S. Richmond,et al.  Three‐dimensional surface acquisition systems for the study of facial morphology and their application to maxillofacial surgery , 2007, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[12]  M. Goonewardene,et al.  Accuracy and validity of space analysis and irregularity index measurements using digital models. , 2008, Australian orthodontic journal.

[13]  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.

[14]  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.