Reliability, reproducibility and validity of the conventional buccolingual and mesiodistal measurements on 3D dental digital models obtained from intra-oral 3D scanner

Soto-Álvarez, Carolina; Fonseca, Gabriel M; Viciano, Joan; Aguilera, Inmaculada Alemán; Rojas-Torres, Javier; Zúñiga, María Hilary; López-Lázaro, Sandra

doi:10.1016/j.archoralbio.2019.104575

Cited by 16 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, Adobes et al [18] reported the opposite, with ClinCheck Pro tending to display larger widths. Soto-Alvarez et al [19] and Rajshekar et al [20] found substantial agreement with no statistically significant differences between the cast and digital models. The findings of the pres- Subsequently, the hard palate and/or the tongue space in between could cause disparity from the actual size.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Evaluating Measurements: A Comparative Study of Digital and Plaster Models for Orthodontic Applications in Mixed Dentition

Shin,

Chae,

Lee

et al. 2024

J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to assess the accuracy of tooth widths, intermolar widths, and arch lengths acquired through two intraoral scanners, including iTero Element Plus Series (Align Technology, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and Trios 4 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), specifically on mixed dentition. A total of 30 subjects were divided into 2 groups, each undergoing both alginate impressions and intraoral scanning using either the iTero or Trios scanner. The plaster models were measured with a caliper, while the digital models were measured virtually. In the iTero group, all tooth width measurements exhibited differences compared to the plaster values, except for maxillary left lateral incisors (p = 0.179), mandibular right (p = 0.285), and left (p = 0.073) central incisors. The Trios group did not display significant differences in any of the tooth width measurements. Intermolar width comparisons for both groups indicated differences, except for mandibular primary canine to primary canine values (p = 0.426) in the iTero group. Regarding arch length, the mandibular anterior, maxillary right, and left arch lengths in the iTero group demonstrated larger caliper values than those of iTero. Conversely, in the Trios group, all parameters showed smaller caliper values, especially in upper anterior, maxillary right, mandibular right, and mandibular left arch lengths with significance (p = 0.027, 0.007, 0.003, and 0.047, respectively). Despite the differences between the two groups, digital models might be clinically suitable alternatives for plaster models. Pediatric dentists should carefully assess these differences, as a comprehensive evaluation would result in precise orthodontic treatment planning and favorable outcomes for young patients with mixed dentition.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Evaluating Measurements: A Comparative Study of Digital and Plaster Models for Orthodontic Applications in Mixed Dentition

Shin,

Chae,

Lee

et al. 2024

J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…groups that compared physical and digital measurements using models obtained by different scanning processes. 9,10,[27][28][29][30][31][32] Thus, it is possible to say that the home-built structured light scanner was able to generate models whose teeth presented mesiodistal and height measurements with clinically acceptable precision and accuracy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the precision and accuracy of digital dental models with a low-cost structured light device

STUANI,

PAULA,

MICHEL

et al. 2024

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study evaluated the accuracy and precision of digital models acquisition using a home-built, low-cost scanning system based on the structured light method. Methods: a plaster model (PM) was scanned using the experimental device (SL) and a dental desktop scanner (DS). The teeth dimensions of PM and SL models were measured in triplicate, with a caliper and digitally, respectively. The agreement of the measurements of each model was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient, and the validity between the different measurement techniques was assessed using the Bland-Altman analysis. The accuracy and precision of the models were qualitatively investigated using the mesh superposition of the SL and DS models. Results: A high intraclass correlation coefficient was observed in all models (PM=0.964; SL1=0.998; SL2=0.995; SL3=0.998), and there was no statistical difference between the measurements of the SL models (p>0.05). PM and SL model measurements were found to be in good agreement, with only 3.57% of the observed differences between the same measurement being located outside 95% limits of agreement according to Bland and Altman (0.43 and -0.40 mm). In the superimpositions of SL-SL and SL-DS models, areas of discrepancy greater than 0.5 mm were observed mainly in interproximal, occlusal, and cervical sites. Conclusion: These results indicate that the home-built SL scanning system did not possess sufficient accuracy and precision for many clinical applications. However, the consistency in preserving the dental proportions suggests that the equipment can be used for planning, storage, and simple clinical purposes.

show abstract

“…The sample size used in the study was set using a power analysis and is larger compared with the one used by other authors reporting on the same topic using different software. Reuschl et al, Koretsi et al, Naidu and Freer, Quimby et al, Soto-Alvarez et al, Sousa et al, Grunheid et al, and Camardella et al, performed accuracy and reliability appraisals using a sample size ranging from 19 to 50 plaster and digital casts [ 10 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous reports support the high level of agreement of dental measurements performed on plaster and digital casts [ 24 ]. Some authors reported an extremely high agreement with no statistically significant difference between the two methods regarding tooth width measurements, as is the case of Soto-Alvarez et al who reported a mean difference of −0.007 mm to −0.136 mm and Rajshekar who found differences as small as 0.004–0.062 mm [ 16 , 24 ]. Most of the authors, on the contrary, in agreement with our results, found differences that were statistically significant but in all cases were considered clinically negligible [ 6 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of Tooth Width Measurements Delivered by the Clin-Check Pro 6.0 Software on Digital Casts: A Cross-Sectional Study

Martin

Lipani

Martinez

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy and reliability of tooth width measurements and Bolton Indices delivered by the Clin-Check Pro 6.0 software (Align Technology, San José, CA, USA). Fifty-four plaster casts were selected and measured with a manual calliper by a trained and calibrated observer. The data gathered were compared with those delivered by the software on the corresponding fifty-four virtual casts. The method reliability of the software was assessed by comparing the measurements performed by the software on 201 pairs of clin-checks corresponding to two consecutive treatment phases. Accuracy and reliability were statistically assessed using a mixed model. The software tends to provide larger widths compared with the manual method. Statistically significant differences were found in 23 teeth. At a global level, the mean difference between the methods was −0.19 mm, with a Dahlberg error of 0.24 mm and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.98. The Bolton Indices delivered by the two methods had a moderate correlation (ICC = 0.59; 0.69). The within method reliability of the software was extremely high. Tooth width measurements delivered by the software, despite the positive bias, can be considered accurate and clinically acceptable for all teeth except molars. The Bolton Indices made available by the software are not accurate and clinically acceptable, especially in the case of mandibular excess.

show abstract

Reliability, reproducibility and validity of the conventional buccolingual and mesiodistal measurements on 3D dental digital models obtained from intra-oral 3D scanner

Cited by 16 publications

References 27 publications

Evaluating Measurements: A Comparative Study of Digital and Plaster Models for Orthodontic Applications in Mixed Dentition

Evaluating Measurements: A Comparative Study of Digital and Plaster Models for Orthodontic Applications in Mixed Dentition

Evaluating the precision and accuracy of digital dental models with a low-cost structured light device

Reliability of Tooth Width Measurements Delivered by the Clin-Check Pro 6.0 Software on Digital Casts: A Cross-Sectional Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About