Linear measurements using virtual study models

Luu, Nghe S.; Nikolcheva, Liliya G.; Retrouvey, Jean-Marc; Flores-Mir, Carlos; El‐Bialy, Tarek; Carey, Jason P.; Major, Paul W.

doi:10.2319/110311-681.1

Cited by 63 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All mean differences were well below the clinically significant difference of 0.3 mm for orthodontic purposes as suggested by Hirogaki et al 9 and were also significantly lower than the clinically relevant threshold difference of 0.5 mm as suggested by Luu et al 10 Keating et al 5 reported a range of absolute measurement differences between the plaster and virtual model measurements of 0.10 mm to 0.19 mm, which closely coincides with the range we found of 0.08 mm to 0.23 mm. ICC results also demonstrate an excellent agreement among the plaster models, CBCT scans, and laser-scanned digital models ($0.808).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 44%

“…This is consistent with previous studies. 2,3,10,11 Mean differences when comparing laser-scanned digital models and plaster models to the CBCT scans were higher than those between the laser-scanned models and plaster models. This was expected because CBCT is a direct imaging technique, thereby effectively eliminating the errors that may arise from the alginate impression and plaster model production stage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to plaster models and cone-beam computed tomography

Kim

Heo

Lagravère

2013

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the accuracy of measurements obtained from the three-dimensional (3D) laser scans to those taken from the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and those obtained from plaster models. Materials and Methods: Eighteen different measurements, encompassing mesiodistal width of teeth and both maxillary and mandibular arch length and width, were selected using various landmarks. CBCT scans and plaster models were prepared from 60 patients. Plaster models were scanned using the Ortho Insight 3D laser scanner, and the selected landmarks were measured using its software. CBCT scans were imported and analyzed using the Avizo software, and the 26 landmarks corresponding to the selected measurements were located and recorded. The plaster models were also measured using a digital caliper. Descriptive statistics and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used to analyze the data. Results: The ICC result showed that the values obtained by the three different methods were highly correlated in all measurements, all having correlations .0.808. When checking the differences between values and methods, the largest mean difference found was 0.59 mm 6 0.38 mm. Conclusions: In conclusion, plaster models, CBCT models, and laser-scanned models are three different diagnostic records, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. The present results showed that the laser-scanned models are highly accurate to plaster models and CBCT scans. This gives general clinicians an alternative to take into consideration the advantages of laser-scanned models over plaster models and CBCT reconstructions. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:443-450.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 44%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to plaster models and cone-beam computed tomography

Kim

Heo

Lagravère

2013

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Differently from stated by Santoro et al, [23], Torassian et al, [17] and Luu et al, [21], but similarly with research published by Quimby et al, [20], the present study showed that measurements performed in conventional models presented lower measurements when compared to virtual ones. It seems that virtual images are discreetly expanded.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 55%

“…A systematic review published by Luu et al, [21] stated that Bolton discrepancy, crowding and arch perimeter were considered clinically significant above 0.7mm. This evidence possibly corroborates with the use virtual images obtained with Ortho Insight 3D scanner.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Virtual Measurements of Scanned Dental Impressions

RO¹,

CJ²

2017

IJDOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionPlaster models are tools of fundamental relevance for diagnose and orthodontic treatment planning [1][2][3]. Dental models are employed for evaluation of sagital, vertical and transversal dimensions and also for crowding or spacing measurements. However, plaster models present some disadvantages, such as huge space for storage, risk of loss or breakage and possibility of mold proliferation over long term [2].In this context, it has been proposed the use of digital models as a tool for diagnose and planning for daily orthodontic practice [1,4]. Digital models do not require physical space for storage, allow easy information exchange among professionals [2] and enable simple and practical digital diagnose setup making [5].Digital model obtainment can be produced by laser scanning of plaster models [6], impressions [7] or intra oral direct scanning [8]. Digital models extracted from computed tomography has also been reported [7].Majorly, the published studies have focused on evaluating the accuracy of digital models obtained from plaster models scanning [6,9,10] and few studies have investigated de precision of digital models produced through dental impression scanning [12,13]. Therefore, diagnose and treatment planning can be compromised when using tools that are not properly calibrated. The present study thus aimed at evaluating the accuracy of alginate impression-obtained virtual models. AbstractIntroduction: Digital models have been proposed as substitutes for plaster models. Dental arch impression scanning is a rapid and practical approach for digital model obtainment; however, few studies have accessed the accuracy of the method. This study verified the accuracy of virtual measurements obtained with the scanner Ortho Insight 3D, version 5.0 (Motionview Software, LLC, Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA). Materials And Methods: Total of 26 plaster models belonging to the Bahia Federal University Orthodontic postgraduation program were divided into three groups: G1 (plaster models); G2 (alginate impressions scan) and G3 (plaster models scan). Virtual measurements were compared to the manual by evaluating upper intercanine and intermolar distances and the antero posterior distance between upper left canine and upper left molar. Paired Student t and Lin agreement (5% of significance level) were employed for the statistical analysis. Results: Of the evaluated measures, the mean difference ranged from 0.48mm to 0.55mm when compared G2 and G1. The mean difference ranged from 0.6mm to 0.65mm between G3 and G1 groups. Comparing the groups G2 and G3 to G1, it was found statistically significant differences between all variables (p <0.05). There was a substantial agreement (ρc between 0.95-0.99) and almost perfect (ρc> 0.99) for all parameters evaluated. Conclusion: Despite having existed significant differences between the virtual and physical approaches, substantial and almost perfect agreement between them allow us to suggest that there is accuracy of virtual images obtained from scanned impressions in alginate ...

show abstract

“…The results showed the possibility of creating a retainer accurately on patient's teeth without an impression. Hence, in consensus with other techniques, working with digital replicas proved to be accurate and reliable [15] [16] [17].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Orthodontic 3D Printed Retainers versus Thermoformed Retainers

Nasef¹,

El-Beialy²,

Eid³

et al. 2017

OJMI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The integration of the current technology of CBCT and 3D CAD/CAM technology has great potential in the field of orthodontics, which is not yet fully investigated. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the accuracy of 3D printed retainers in comparison to vacuum formed retainers. Methods: Alginate impressions were taken for ten patients who have a CBCT scan. A 3D printed retainer and vacuum formed retainer were fabricated. Linear measurements were measured by two assessors using digital caliper. Every measurement on the 3D printed retainer was compared to the corresponding measurement on the thermoformed retainer. The linear measurements were Inter-canine width, Inter-premolar width (first and second premolars), Inter-molar width, Canine-midline length (both sides) and Canine-molar length (both sides). Intra-observer, and inter-observer reliability measurements were done. Results: Results showed excellent intra-observer reliability for the thermoformed retainer and the 3D printed retainer. Inter-observer measurements showed strong agreement between the measurements of the two assessors, for both retainers. The comparison of the thermoformed retainer to the 3D printed retainer showed high statistical agreement, except for the canine-molar on the right side, but with no clinical significance,

show abstract

Linear measurements using virtual study models

Abstract: Virtual study models are clinically acceptable compared with plaster study models with regard to intrarater reliability and validity of selected linear measurements.

Cited by 63 publications

References 24 publications

Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to plaster models and cone-beam computed tomography

Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to plaster models and cone-beam computed tomography

Evaluation of Virtual Measurements of Scanned Dental Impressions

Accuracy of Orthodontic 3D Printed Retainers versus Thermoformed Retainers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About