Preparation and evaluation of orthodontic setup

Araújo, Telma Martins de; Fonseca, Lílian Martins; Caldas, Luciana Duarte; Costa-Pinto, Roberto Amarante

doi:10.1590/s2176-94512012000300026

Cited by 21 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the setup should not be constructed artistically to help persuade the patient to accept treatment but very carefully, in line with the treatment goals and limitations of orthodontic mechanics. 2 In the study, the digital models were also analyzed by converting the manual setup and final model into digital models. According to Sousa et al, 4 the digital models proved as reliable as plaster models (casts) in obtaining the measures commonly used for diagnosis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Araú jo et al 2 emphasized the various disadvantages of manual setups, including a lengthy fabrication time given that professionals spend a few hours doing laboratory work, although this factor does not preclude its use. This assertion proves even more flexible when the digital setup is used as an aid in orthodontic diagnosis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To be selected, patients had to meet the following criteria: orthodontic treatment must have been completed, presence of permanent teeth as far as the second molars, treatment must not involve prosthetic rehabilitation, facial growth must have been completed before the start of treatment, no involvement of orthognathic surgery, dental casts properly fabricated 2 and in perfect condition, and manual setups based on the proposed treatment plan.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The manual setups had been previously fabricated by graduate students from the Specialization Program in Orthodontics, Federal University of Bahia, according to the treatment plan proposed under the supervision of an orthodontics instructor following the method described by Araú jo et al 2 The manual setups were made and used for diagnosis and planning prior to the orthodontic treatment.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6] In carrying out this diagnosis, the teeth are separated from each other and from the bases of upper and lower casts, allowing them to be repositioned within the framework of orthodontic treatment planning. [1][2][3][4] Setup's key advantage lies in allowing professionals to ascertain that treatment planning is indeed viable in each case. 1,3,5,6 It answers questions such as the following: Are extractions necessary or will the mere stripping of interproximal prove sufficient to align the teeth?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Reliability of digital orthodontic setups

Barreto

Faber

Vogel

et al. 2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the reliability of digital orthodontic setup technology by comparing it with manual setups and models cast at the end of orthodontic treatment. Materials and Methods: Initial models, manual setups, and final models of 20 patients were used. The initial and final models, as well as the manual setups, were scanned using a 3Shape R-700 scanner, while the digital setups were fabricated based on the initial models using 3Shape OrthoAnalyzer software. Evaluation of the models based on the manual setup, digital setup, and final models of each patient was performed using the following linear measurements: intercanine widths, intermolar widths, and length of the upper and lower dental arches. Results:The results disclosed that none of the measures assessed through the manual setup, digital setup, and final models showed statistically significant differences (P . .05). Conclusions: Based on these findings, it can be inferred that digital setups are as effective and accurate as manual setups and constitute a tool for diagnosing and treatment planning that can be reliably reproduced in orthodontic treatments. (Angle Orthod. 2016;86:255-259.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Reliability of digital orthodontic setups

Barreto

Faber

Vogel

et al. 2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Virtual setup: application in orthodontic practice

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Virtual setups present several advantages, e.g., digital storage, digital models cannot be damaged, the same model can undergo several treatment simulations, and communication between dental and surgical professionals and between dental professionals and patients is facilitated. Despite these advantages, considerable time and training are needed for dental professionals to master and adopt the general use of digital models and virtual setups in dentistry.

show abstract

The influence of the model superimposition method on the assessment of accuracy and predictability of setup models

Camardella

Vilella

Breuning³

et al. 2021

J Orofac Orthop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different superimposition methods on the accuracy and predictability of conventional and virtual diagnostic setups. Materials and methods Ten finished cases were used to make a conventional setup and a virtual setup. Second molars were not moved in the two setup situations to allow a reference for superimposition. Conventional and virtual setups were superimposed and compared by second molar registration and the whole surface best fit method (WSBF). Conventional and virtual setups were compared to the posttreatment models with WSBF and palatal rugae best fit (PRBF). Anterior, intermediate, and posterior regions of the dental arches were compared. The paired t-test was used to compare the mean differences between conventional and virtual setups, posttreatment models and both conventional and virtual setups by the WSBF method, and between maxillary posttreatment and virtual setup models using the WSBF and PRBF methods. Results Conventional and virtual setups differed depending on the two superimposition methods used. Superimposition of the posttreatment models and both setups using WSBF presented no statistically significant differences. There were statistically significant differences between posttreatment and virtual setup models using WSBF and PRBF superimposition methods. Conclusions The model superimposition method influenced the assessment of accuracy and predictability of setup models. There were statistically significant differences between the maxillary posttreatment and virtual setup models using the WSBF and the PRBF superimposition methods. It is important to establish stable structures to evaluate the accuracy and predictability of setup models.

show abstract

Preparation and evaluation of orthodontic setup

Cited by 21 publications

References 7 publications

Reliability of digital orthodontic setups

Reliability of digital orthodontic setups

Virtual setup: application in orthodontic practice

The influence of the model superimposition method on the assessment of accuracy and predictability of setup models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About