Accuracy of Bolton analysis measured in laser scanned digital models compared with plaster models (gold standard) and cone-beam computer tomography images

Kim, Jooseong; Lagravère, Manuel O.

doi:10.4041/kjod.2016.46.1.13

Cited by 27 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For CBCT, similar data were reported by Kim et al [4,5]. Literature is not in agreement about the technique with the best reproducibility: both digital models [4,5,7], and plaster models [16] had the best scores in different studies. Overall, only three mesiodistal crown diameters had differences larger than 0.5 mm, which is considered the threshold for clinical acceptability [7,18].…”

Section: Are Dental Measurements Taken On Plaster Casts Comparable Tosupporting

confidence: 71%

“…Safety, accuracy and reliability of measurements taken with new instruments must be evaluated and compared with those obtained with traditional methods also for dental landmarks: data obtained from both the digital and traditional plaster casts models must match in order to allow using the new technologies in clinical practice [2,8,18]. In general, recent investigations found that measurements taken on digital models do not differ clinically from those obtained on CBCT scans and physical models [4,5]. Unfortunately, while reporting intra-examiner reliability, no inter-examiner variations were presented [6][7][8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are Dental Measurements Taken on Plaster Casts Comparable to Those Taken From CBCT Images and Laser Scanned Surfaces?

Pisoni¹,

Codari²,

Galli³

et al. 2018

EDUJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Intraoral scanning techniques, laser scans and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) are becoming widely diffused in dental practice. These instruments can replace dental plaster casts with digital models; recent investigations have found that measurements taken on digital models do not differ clinically from those obtained on CBCT scans and physical models, but only intra-examiner reliability has been assessed. In the current study we tested both intra-and inter-examiner variations, together with intertechniques reliability. Methodology: Data from six adult subjects were retrospectively obtained. Twelve dental distances were measured on dental plaster casts using a digital calliper; on digital 3D CBCT images using inVivoDental software (Anatomage, San Jose, CA); and on laser scanned surfaces using Mirror Vectra Software (Canfield Scientific, Fairfield, NJ). Two different operators performed all measurements twice. Bland-Altman analysis, Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests were used for comparisons. Results:The intra-and inter-operator biases range was 0-0.34 mm. The reproducibility range was 72-99%. The three different techniques gave very similar measurements, with biases between ±0.1 mm. Reproducibility ranged between 90 and 100%; the best reproducibility coefficients were found between plaster and digital casts, and only three differences were larger than 0.5 mm. Calliper measurements slightly overestimated digital casts values. Only the mesiodistal distance of tooth 24 (p=0.002) was significantly different among techniques. Conclusion: Measurements on digital dental models and CBCT reconstructions of the dental arches seem clinically reliable as direct calliper measurements. The inter-and intra-operator reliabilities were acceptable, some more care may be needed for CBCT measurements.

show abstract

Section: Are Dental Measurements Taken On Plaster Casts Comparable Tosupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Dental Measurements Taken on Plaster Casts Comparable to Those Taken From CBCT Images and Laser Scanned Surfaces?

Pisoni¹,

Codari²,

Galli³

et al. 2018

EDUJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using 3D computerized images instead of plaster orthodontic models has several advantages such as accuracy, efficiency, and facility of measuring of tooth and arch sizes [11]. We conducted a 3D study to assess the arch dimensions in 12-16 year-old Iranian adolescents with normal occlusion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mathematical beta function formulation for maxillary arch form prediction in normal occlusion population

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to assess the dental arch curvature in subjects with normal occlusion in an Iranian population and propose a beta function formula to predict maxillary arch form using the mandibular intermolar widths (IMW) and intermolar depths (IMD). The materials used were study casts of 54 adolescents with normal occlusion and mean age of 14.1 years (25 males, 29 females, age range 12-16 years). Curve-fitting analyses were carried out and the curves passing through the facial-axis point of the canines, premolars, first molars, and the incisal edges of the anterior teeth were studied using a 3D laser scanner. Using the measured IMW and IMD of the dental arches at the maxillary and mandibular first molar region, a beta function formula proposed for predicting maxillary arch form. The accuracy of the proposed formula was assessed on 10 randomly selected dental casts. The mean (SD) of the maxillary and mandibular IMW and IMD were 57.92 (4.75), 54.19 (5.31), and 31.59 (2.90) and 28.10 (2.59) mm, respectively. There was no gender dimorphism (P > 0.05) for both variables (IMW, IMD). There was a strong positive association (n = 10, Pearson r = 0.98, P < 0.05) between the measured (actual) maxillary arch length and proposed arch length derived from generated formula. The goodness of fit (whole arch) for the proposed beta function formula, using adjusted r square measure and root mean square in 10 patients averaged 0.97 and 1.49 mm, respectively. The corresponding figures for the maxillary anterior arch (canine to canine) were 0.90 and 0.92 mm, respectively. The proposed beta function formula used for predicting maxillary arch form based on two mandibular measures (IMW, IMD) was found to have a high accuracy for maxillary arch prediction in the Iranian population and may be used as a guide to fabricate customized arch wires or as an aid in maxillary reconstructive surgery.

show abstract

“…A software tool that calculates the 2D arch circumference and 2D tooth width can be added easily to digital model analysis programs,1415 which means that the AALL can be estimated more easily and accurately by subtracting the 2D arch circumference from the 3D arch circumference or by subtracting the sum of the 2D tooth widths from the sum of the 3D tooth widths in each case, rather than estimating the AALL using various equations suggested by different authors 91011121316. In this case, using the proximal maximum convexities to calculate the AALL can be more convenient than using landmarks such as cusp tips because identification of the proximal maximum convexities is also required for tooth size measurements and calculations of the required space and arch length discrepancy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reference points suitable for evaluation of the additional arch length required for leveling the curve of Spee

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe additional arch length required for leveling (AALL) the curve of Spee (COS) can be estimated by subtracting the two-dimensional (2D) arch circumference, which is the projection of the three-dimensional (3D) arch circumference onto the occlusal plane, from the 3D arch circumference, which represents the arch length after leveling the COS. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the cusp tips or proximal maximum convexities are more appropriate reference points for estimating the AALL.MethodsSixteen model setups of the mandibular arch with COS depths ranging from 0 mm to 4.7 mm were constructed using digital simulation. Arch circumferences in 2D and 3D were measured from the cusp tips and proximal maximum convexities and used to calculate the AALL. The values obtained using the two reference points were compared with the paired t-test.ResultsAlthough the 3D arch circumference should be constant regardless of the COS depth, it decreased by 3.8 mm in cusp tip measurements and by 0.4 mm in proximal maximum convexity measurements as the COS deepened to 4.7 mm. AALL values calculated using the cusp tips as reference points were significantly smaller than those calculated using the proximal maximum convexities (p = 0.002).ConclusionsThe AALL is underestimated when the cusp tips are used as measurement reference points; the AALL can be measured more accurately using the proximal maximum convexities.

show abstract

Accuracy of Bolton analysis measured in laser scanned digital models compared with plaster models (gold standard) and cone-beam computer tomography images

Cited by 27 publications

References 20 publications

Are Dental Measurements Taken on Plaster Casts Comparable to Those Taken From CBCT Images and Laser Scanned Surfaces?

Are Dental Measurements Taken on Plaster Casts Comparable to Those Taken From CBCT Images and Laser Scanned Surfaces?

Mathematical beta function formulation for maxillary arch form prediction in normal occlusion population

Reference points suitable for evaluation of the additional arch length required for leveling the curve of Spee

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About