Comparison of Measurements on Conventional Plaster Model and Computer-Aided Digital Dental Models

Rukiye Gunel; Merve Göymen; Aysegul Gulec; Guzin Bilgin Buyuknacar

doi:10.58600/eurjther2550

Authors

Rukiye Gunel Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, Kahramanmaraş, Turkiye https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6592-185X
Merve Göymen Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkiye https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1044-277X
Aysegul Gulec Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkiye https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8838-1546
Guzin Bilgin Buyuknacar Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkiye https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8845-1193

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58600/eurjther2550

Keywords:

Intraoral scanner, Virtual model, Plaster model, Caliper, Model analysis

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the present study was to examine the veracity and precision of measurements obtained from plaster models and digital models of subjects presenting with different malocclusion patterns.

Methods: A total of 68 orthodontic patients, who had requested treatment were randomly selected and included in the study and classified as Class I (n=20), Class II (n=20) and Class III (n=18). The first group underwent an alginate impression procedure, which involved taking measurements from both the upper and lower jaws. Subsequently, plaster models were created through the casting of these impressions. In the second group, digital models were created by digitizing the patients’ upper and lower jaws with an intraoral scanner. In the third group, the plaster models were digitized via a camera, thus creating a digital model record. A series of measurements was taken on both the digital and plaster models. These included intercanine width, intermolar width, overjet, overbite, mesiodistal dimensions of the teeth, as well as the Bolton, Hayes-Nance and midline shift analyses. The reliability of the measurements taken on the plaster models with electronic calipers and on the digital models with 3Shape Ortho Analyzer software was then evaluated.

Results: The results of the analyses revealed no statistically significant differences between the groups (p>0.05). Statistically significant differences were observed between Class II and Class III malocclusions in Group 1 in terms of mandibular intermolar distance measurements, and between Class I malocclusion, Class II and Class III malocclusions in Group 3 in terms of Bolton 12 teeth measurements (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: The measurements derived from plaster models, digital models obtained directly with an intraoral camera and digital models generated through the scanning of the plaster models, and demonstrated comparable reliability. In orthodontics, digital models represent an acceptable alternative to plaster models for the purpose of taking measurements.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Kuroda T, Motohashi N, Tominaga R, Iwata K (1996) Three-dimensional dental cast analyzing system using laser scanning. Am J Orthod. 110(4):365–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70036-7

Lippold C, Kirschneck C, Schreiber K, Abukiress S, Tahvildari A, Moiseenko T, Danesh G (2015) Methodological accuracy of digital and manual model analysis in orthodontics – A retrospective clinical study. Comput Biol Med. 62:103–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2015.04.012

Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ (2003) Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod. 124(1):101–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00152-5

Peluso MJ, Josell SD, Levine SW, Lorei BJ (2004) Digital models: An introduction. Semin Orthod. 10(3):226–238. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2004.05.007

Dalstra M, Meisen B (2009) From alginate impressions to digital virtual models: accuracy and reproducibility. J Orthod. 36(1):36–41. https://doi.org/10.1179/14653120722905

Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW (2006) Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: Comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod. 129(6):794–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.08.023

Generali C, Primozic J, Richmond S, Bizzarro M, Flores-Mir C, Ovsenik M, Perillo L (2017) Three-dimensional evaluation of the maxillary arch and palate in unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects using digital dental casts. Eur J Orthod. 39(6):641–645. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjx019

Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ (2009) Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod. 136(1):16.e1-16.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.019

Tomassetti JJ, Taloumis LJ, Denny JM, Fischer JR (2001) A comparison of 3 computerized Bolton tooth-size analyses with a commonly used method. Angle Orthod. 71(5):351-357. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2001)071<0351:ACOCBT>2.0.CO;2

Zilberman O, Huggare JAV, Parikakis KA (2003) Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod. 73(3):301-306. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2003)073<0301:EOTVOT>2.0.CO;2

Sousa MVS, Vasconcelos EC, Janson G, Garib D, Pinzan A (2012) Accuracy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measurements. Am J Orthod. 142(2):269–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.12.028

Bell A, Ayoub AF, Siebert P (2003) Assessment of the accuracy of a three-dimensional imaging system for archiving dental study models. J Orthod. 30(3):219–223. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/30.3.219

Akyalcin S, Dyer DJ, English JD, Sar C (2013) Comparison of 3-dimensional dental models from different sources: Diagnostic accuracy and surface registration analysis. Am J Orthod. 144(6):831–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.08.014

Alcan T, Ceylanoǧlu C, Baysal B (2009) The Relationship between Digital Model Accuracy and Time-Dependent Deformation of Alginate Impressions. Angle Orthod. 79(1):30–36. https://doi.org/10.2319/100307-475.1

Quimby ML, Vig KWL, Rashid RG, Firestone AR (2004) The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. Angle Orthod. 74(3):298-303. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0298:TAAROM>2.0.CO;2

Baciu ER, Budală DG, Vasluianu RI, Lupu CI, Murariu A, Gelețu GL, Zetu IN, Diaconu-Popa D, Tatarciuc M, Nichitean G, Luchian I (2022) A Comparative Analysis of Dental Measurements in Physical and Digital Orthodontic Case Study Models. Medicina. 58(9):1230. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58091230

Uysal T, Usumez S, Memili B (2005) Dental and alveolar arch widths in normal occlusion and Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 75(5): 809-813. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[809:DAAAWI]2.0.CO;2

Angelone F, Ponsiglione AM, Ricciardi C, Cesarelli G, Sansone M, Amato F (2023) Diagnostic Applications of Intraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review. J Imaging. 9(7):134. https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging9070134

Christopoulou I, Kaklamanos EG, Makrygiannakis MA, Bitsanis I, Perlea P, Tsolakis AI (2022) Intraoral Scanners in Orthodontics: A Critical Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 19(3):1407. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031407