BackgroundIntraoral scanners are devices for capturing digital impressions in dentistry. Until now, several in vitro studies have assessed the trueness of digital impressions, but in vivo studies are missing. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to introduce a new method to assess trueness of intraoral scanners and digital impressions in an in vivo clinical set-up.MethodsA digital impression using an intraoral scanner (Trios® 3 Cart wired, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) and a conventional alginate impression (Cavex Impressional®, Cavex, Haarlem, the Netherlands) as clinical reference were made for two patients assigned for full mouth extraction. A total of 30 teeth were collected upon surgery after impressions making. The gypsum model created from conventional impression and extracted teeth were then scanned in a lab scanner (Activity 885®, SmartOptics, Bochum, Germany). Digital model of the intraoral scanner (DM), digital model of the conventional gypsum cast (CM) and those of the extracted natural teeth (NT) were imported to a reverse engineering software (3-matic®, Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) in which the three models were registered then DM and CM were compared to their corresponding teeth in NT by distance map calculations.ResultsDM had statistically insignificant better trueness when compared to CM for total dataset (p = 0.15), statistically insignificant better trueness for CM when mandibular arches analyzed alone (p = 0.56), while a significantly better DM trueness (p = 0.013) was found when only maxillary arches were compared.ConclusionsOur results show that digital impression technique is clinically as good as or better than the current reference standard for study models of orthognathic surgery patients.

No abstract

Aesthetic appraisal is rarely included in the objective assessment of outcome studies of impacted maxillary canines treatment. The present study aimed to validate a new index for assessing the aesthetic appearance of maxillary canines and adjacent soft tissues. The Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at University Hospitals Leuven. Four oral‐maxillofacial surgeons, two orthodontists, two prosthodontists, and two lay persons rated 11 maxillary canines and adjacent soft tissues according to the new index. Each of the examiners repeated the examination three times with a 2‐week interval. Twelve relevant aesthetic variables were selected on the basis of the anatomic form, color, and surface characteristics of the canine crown and on the basis of the anatomic form, color, and surface characteristics of the adjacent soft tissues. Intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficient and Fleiss' kappa statistics were performed to analyze the intrarater and interrater agreement. The index proofed to be a reliable assessment tool. Considering the cumulative assessment of the Maxillary Canine Aesthetic Index (MCAI), the mean ICC value for the interrater agreement of the 10 examiners was 0.71, representing a good agreement. Intrarater agreement ranged from 0.10 to 0.91. Interrater agreement (Fleiss' kappa statistics) calculated for each variable ranged from 0.08 to 0.98. The MCAI is a tool in rating aesthetic outcome of impacted canine treatment and adjacent soft tissues. The MCAI can be used to evaluate the aesthetic outcome after surgical exposure or transalveolar transplantation of maxillary canines.

The purpose of this study was to propose and validate an index evaluating 2D and 3D radiographic variables of autotransplanted maxillary canines. Setting and sample population are from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at University Hospitals Leuven. Eight oral‐maxillofacial surgeons rated 12 autotransplanted maxillary canines and adjacent bone using 11 rating variables. A new autotransplanted maxillary canine radiological index (AMCRI) was proposed. It consisted of 11 variables. These variables were based on 2D (intraoral) and 3D Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) radiographs. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Fleiss's kappa statistics were performed to analyze intrarater and interrater agreement. Considering cumulative assessment of the AMCRI, the mean ICC value for the interrater agreement of the eight examiners was 0.94, representing an excellent agreement. Intrarater agreement was 0.91. The AMCRI is an objective tool in rating radiological outcome of autotransplanted canines and adjacent bone, when compared with the contralateral canine.