Dentoalveolar and arch dimension changes in patients treated with miniplate-anchored maxillary protraction

Elnagar, Mohammed H.; Elshourbagy, Eman; Ghobashy, Safaa; Khedr, Mohamed; Evans, Carla A.

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.10.038

Cited by 21 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3D mapping of tooth movement is achievable by superimposing digital models on stable structures with 3D software systems. [12][13][14] With the trend toward digital impressions, recent studies have focused on evaluating the accuracy of digital scanners. [15][16][17][18] Digital impressions captured by intraoral scanners have been shown to be as accurate in both trueness and precision as conventional elastomeric impressions, and thus are acceptable for clinical use.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Dental Monitoring 3D digital dental models using photograph and video mode

Morris¹,

Hoye²,

Elnagar

et al. 2019

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to test the accuracy of the 3-dimensional (3D) digital dental models generated by the Dental Monitoring (DM) smartphone application in both photograph and video modes over successive DM examinations in comparison with 3D digital dental models generated by the iTero Element intraoral scanner. Methods: Ten typodonts with setups of class I malocclusion and comparable severity of anterior crowding were used in the study. iTero Element scans along with DM examination in photograph and video modes were performed before tooth movement and after each set of 10 Invisalign aligners for each typodont. Stereolithography (STL) files generated from the DM examinations in photograph and video modes were superimposed with the STL files from the iTero scans using GOM Inspect software to determine the accuracy of both photograph and video modes of DM technology. Results: No clinically significant differences, according to the American Board of Orthodontics-determined standards, were found. Mean global deviations for the maxillary arch ranged from 0.00149 to 0.02756 mm in photograph mode and from 0.0148 to 0.0256 mm in video mode. Mean global deviations for the mandibular arch ranged from 0.0164 to 0.0275 mm in photograph mode and from 0.0150 to 0.0264 mm in video mode. Statistically significant differences were found between the 3D models generated by the iTero and the DM application in photograph and video modes over successive DM examinations. Conclusions: 3D digital dental models generated by the DM smartphone application in photograph and video modes are accurate enough to be used for clinical applications.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Dental Monitoring 3D digital dental models using photograph and video mode

Morris¹,

Hoye²,

Elnagar

et al. 2019

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, this type of assessment has inherent limitations related to its bidimensional nature 5 . Several methods have been described for the superimposition of maxillary digital dental models 6‐20 . These methods allow 3D visualization and quantitative assessment of dentoalveolar changes between different time points without exposing the patients to radiation 21 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison and reproducibility of three methods for maxillary digital dental model registration in open bite patients

Castillo

Vilanova

Janson

et al. 2021

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare and assess the reproducibility of 3 methods for registration of maxillary digital dental models in patients with anterior open bite. Settings and sample populationDigital dental models of 16 children with an anterior open bite in the mixed dentition were obtained before (T1) and after 12 months of treatment with bonded spurs (T2).Methods: Landmarks were placed on all T2 models and 3 registration methods (R1, R2 and R3) were independently performed by 2 observers. R1 was based on 10 landmarks placed on posterior teeth. R2 was based on 5 landmarks on the palate (2 anterior, 2 posterior and 1 central). R3 used regions of interest around the 5 palatal landmarks used in R2. The differences between the registration methods were calculated by comparing the mean differences and standard deviations between the corresponding x, y and z coordinates of 6 corresponding landmarks in the T2 registered models. Repeated measures analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni tests were used for comparisons (P < .05). The agreement between methods and the intra and interobserver reproducibility were assessed with Bland-Altman tests and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).Results: Comparisons of R2 with R3 methods showed greater agreement, mean differences ≤0.50 mm for all landmarks, than comparisons of R1 with R2, and R1 with R3, mean differences >0.50 mm for most of the y and z coordinates (P < .05). The R1 and R3 methods presented excellent intra and interobserver reproducibility and R2 method had moderate interobserver reproducibility. Conclusions:Longitudinal assessments of open bite treatment using digital dental models could consider the posterior teeth and/or the palate as references. The R1 and R3 methods showed adequate reproducibility and yield different quantitative results. The choice will depend on the posterior teeth changes and dental models' characteristics.

show abstract

“…Using specific software programs available for image processing of stereolithography (.stl) files, dental casts can also be superimposed at different treatment stages. Thus, the Dentist can evaluate dental movement and skeletal changes in the 3 dimensions (x, y, z), so that the professional may see if the results are compatible with the original planning, any side effects and compare different orthodontic mechanics, among other reasons [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. This kind of evaluation requires the use of stable structures as references for superimposition, which according to the literature should be the first three palatal rugae and the area of the palatal vault [11] [12] [13] [14] [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Models: Comparison of Scanning Angulations and Superimposition

Barbo¹,

Azeredo²,

Menezes³

2020

OJST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate linear measurements in digital models, scanned at different angulations, in order to compare four methods of superimposing digital models. Methods: Dental models obtained from the database of the School of Health and Life Sciences of the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS) were scanned three-dimensionally at different angulations (0˚, 5˚, 10˚ and 15˚ in relation to the occlusal plane) and divided in four groups. The sample size was calculated and 43 dental models were used in this study. Linear measurements were obtained to assess the central and lateral portions of the 3D models, so that any possible distortion would be detected. Additionally, the digital models were superimposed using four approaches based on anatomical references: Methods 1 (three central landmarks), 2 (three lateral landmarks), 3 (surface + single landmark) and 4 (surface + three landmarks). Intraclass correlation coefficient was applied to evaluate the intra-observer reliability. Kruskal-Wallis was calculated to compare the groups according to the angulation during scanning, and Kappa to evaluate the agreement between superimposition methods. Results: No differences were found in models scanned at different angulations. Better superimposition correlation was observed between methods 3 and 4 those used techniques based on palatal surface associated to anatomical landmarks to superimpose. Conclusions: Linear measurements and superimpositions were not affected by the different angulations of the models during the scanning process. The most reliable superimposition methods were the ones using surface and landmarks.

show abstract

Dentoalveolar and arch dimension changes in patients treated with miniplate-anchored maxillary protraction

Cited by 21 publications

References 28 publications

Accuracy of Dental Monitoring 3D digital dental models using photograph and video mode

Accuracy of Dental Monitoring 3D digital dental models using photograph and video mode

Comparison and reproducibility of three methods for maxillary digital dental model registration in open bite patients

Digital Models: Comparison of Scanning Angulations and Superimposition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About