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

Author:

Petrović Valentina1,Šlaj Martina2,Buljan Mia3,Čivljak Tadej4,Zulijani Ana56ORCID,Perić Berislav27

Affiliation:

1. Private Dental Practice, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

2. School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

3. General Hospital ‘Dr Josip Benčević’, 35000 Slavonski Brod, Croatia

4. Dental Polyclinic Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

5. Department of Oral Surgery, Clinical Hospital Center Rijeka, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia

6. Department of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Dental Medicine and Health, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, 31000 Osijek, Croatia

7. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Dubrava, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

Abstract

(1) Background: The objective of this study was to assess which digitization method produces the biggest deviation in the 3D images of tooth size from plaster models made using alginate impressions, which are considered the gold standard in orthodontics. (2) Methods: The sample used in this study included 30 subjects (10 males and 20 females). Measurements were made on four types of models: (1) digital models obtained through intraoral scanning and digitized models of plaster cast made from (2) alginate impressions, (3) silicone impressions, and (4) conventional plaster models. Mesio-distal (MD) and buccal/labial–lingual/palatal (BL) dimensions were measured on the reference teeth of the right side of the jaw (central incisor, canine, first premolar, and first molar). Comparisons of tooth size between the methods were conducted using a repeated measurement analysis of variance and the Friedman test, while the intraclass correlation coefficient was used to determine agreement between the different methods. (3) Results: The results showed a similar level of agreement between the conventional and digital models in both jaws and the anterior, middle, and posterior segments. Better agreement was found for the MD measurements (r = 0.337–0.798; p ≤ 0.05) compared to the BL measurements (r = 0.016–0.542), with a smaller mean difference for MD (0.001–0.50 mm) compared to BL (0.02–1.48 mm) and a smaller measurement error for MD (0.20–0.39) compared to BL (0.38–0.89). There was more frequently a better level of agreement between 3D images than measurements made using a digital caliper on the plaster models with 3D images. (4) Conclusions: The differences in measurements between the digital models and conventional plaster models were small and clinically acceptable.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3