Accuracy and Reliability of Measurements Performed Using Two Different Software Programs on Digital Models Generated Using Laser and Computed Tomography Plaster Model Scanners

Overview

Journal Korean J Orthod

Date 2020 Feb 12

PMID 32042716

Citations 9

Authors

Leonardo T Camardella

Edwin M Ongkosuwito

E Willemijn Penning

Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman

Oswaldo V Vilella

K Hero Breuning

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy and reliability of measurements performed using two different software programs on digital models generated using two types of plaster model scanners (a laser scanner and a computed tomography [CT] scanner).

Methods: Thirty plaster models were scanned with a 3Shape laser scanner and with a Flash CT scanner. Two examiners performed measurements on plaster models by using digital calipers and on digital models by using Ortho Analyzer (3Shape) and Digimodel® (OrthoProof) software programs. Forty-two measurements, including tooth diameter, crown height, overjet, overbite, intercanine and intermolar distances, and sagittal relationship, were obtained.

Results: Statistically significant differences were not found between the plaster and digital model measurements (ANOVA); however, some discrepancies were clinically relevant. Plaster and digital model measurements made using the two scanning methods showed high intraclass coefficient correlation values and acceptable 95% limits of agreement in the Bland-Altman analysis. The software used did not influence the accuracy of measurements.

Conclusions: Digital models generated from plaster casts by using laser and CT scanning and measured using two different software programs are accurate, and the measurements are reliable. Therefore, both fabrication methods and software could be used interchangeably.

Citing Articles

A new approach for sex prediction by evaluating mandibular arch and canine dimensions with machine-learning classifiers and intraoral scanners (a retrospective study).

Baban M, Mohammad D Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):27974.

PMID: 39543410 PMC: 11564754. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-79738-9.

Superimposition of dental models to determine orthodontic tooth movements : Comparison of different superimposition methods in vitro and in vivo.

Schmitz J, Keilig L, Daratsianos N, Bourauel C J Orofac Orthop. 2024; .

PMID: 38345616 DOI: 10.1007/s00056-024-00513-6.

Comparison of Tooth Size Measurements in Orthodontics Using Conventional and 3D Digital Study Models.

Petrovic V, Slaj M, Buljan M, civljak T, Zulijani A, Peric B J Clin Med. 2024; 13(3).

PMID: 38337424 PMC: 10856778. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13030730.

[Degree of reliability of the assessment of the Bolton analysis in three-dimensional virtual models versus plaster models. a review].

Loma Salcedo H, Huasco Huarcaya N Rev Cient Odontol (Lima). 2024; 11(2):e155.

PMID: 38288455 PMC: 10809974. DOI: 10.21142/2523-2754-1102-2023-155.

Digital model superimpositions: are different software algorithms equally accurate in quantifying linear tooth movements?.

Adel S, Vaid N, El-Harouni N, Kassem H, Zaher A BMC Oral Health. 2022; 22(1):103.

PMID: 35361187 PMC: 8973572. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02129-x.

References

Wiranto M, Engelbrecht W, Tutein Nolthenius H, van der Meer W, Ren Y . 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. 2013; 143(1):140-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.06.018. View

Torassian G, Kau C, English J, Powers J, Bussa H, Marie Salas-Lopez A . Digital models vs plaster models using alginate and alginate substitute materials. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80(4):474-81. PMC: 8966457. DOI: 10.2319/072409-413.1. View

Fleming P, Marinho V, Johal A . Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011; 14(1):1-16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01503.x. View

Watanabe-Kanno G, Abrao J, Miasiro Junior H, Sanchez-Ayala A, Lagravere M . Reproducibility, reliability and validity of measurements obtained from Cecile3 digital models. Braz Oral Res. 2009; 23(3):288-95. DOI: 10.1590/s1806-83242009000300011. View

Okunami T, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Evans C, Sadowsky C, Fadavi S . Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131(1):51-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.042. View

Naidu D, Freer T . Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: a comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144(2):304-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.011. View

Costalos P, Sarraf K, Cangialosi T, Efstratiadis S . Evaluation of the accuracy of digital model analysis for the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system for dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128(5):624-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.08.017. View

Creed B, Kau C, English J, Xia J, Lee R . A Comparison of the Accuracy of Linear Measurements Obtained from Cone Beam Computerized Tomography Images and Digital Models. Semin Orthod. 2015; 17(1):49-56. PMC: 4642285. DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2010.08.010. View

Kim J, Heo G, Lagravere M . Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to plaster models and cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2013; 84(3):443-50. PMC: 8667511. DOI: 10.2319/051213-365.1. View

10.

Mullen S, Martin C, Ngan P, Gladwin M . Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132(3):346-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.044. View

11.

Wan Hassan W, Othman S, Chan C, Ahmad R, Ali S, 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(5):886-895. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.04.021. View

12.

Abizadeh N, Moles D, ONeill J, Noar J . Digital versus plaster study models: how accurate and reproducible are they?. J Orthod. 2012; 39(3):151-9. DOI: 10.1179/1465312512Z.00000000023. View

13.

Bootvong K, Liu Z, McGrath C, Hagg U, Wong R, Bendeus M . Virtual model analysis as an alternative approach to plaster model analysis: reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod. 2010; 32(5):589-95. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjp159. View

14.

Goonewardene R, Goonewardene M, Razza J, Murray K . Accuracy and validity of space analysis and irregularity index measurements using digital models. Aust Orthod J. 2008; 24(2):83-90. View

15.

Horton H, Miller J, Gaillard P, Larson B . Technique comparison for efficient orthodontic tooth measurements using digital models. Angle Orthod. 2009; 80(2):254-61. PMC: 8973218. DOI: 10.2319/041709-219.1. View

16.

Westerlund A, Tancredi W, Ransjo M, Bresin A, Psonis S, Torgersson O . Digital casts in orthodontics: a comparison of 4 software systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015; 147(4):509-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.11.020. View

17.

de Waard O, Rangel F, Fudalej P, Bronkhorst E, Kuijpers-Jagtman A, Breuning K . 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. 2014; 146(3):328-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.05.026. View

18.

Asquith J, Gillgrass T, Mossey P . Three-dimensional imaging of orthodontic models: a pilot study. Eur J Orthod. 2007; 29(5):517-22. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjm044. View

19.

Keating A, Knox J, Bibb R, Zhurov A . A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod. 2008; 35(3):191-201. DOI: 10.1179/146531207225022626. View

20.

De Luca Canto G, Pacheco-Pereira C, Lagravere M, Flores-Mir C, Major P . Intra-arch dimensional measurement validity of laser-scanned digital dental models compared with the original plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015; 18(2):65-76. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12068. View