Accuracy of intraoral scan images in full arch with orthodontic brackets: a retrospective in vivo study

Kim, Young Kyun; Kim, So Hyun; Choi, Tae Hyun; Yen, Edwin; Shin, Yonsoo; Lee, Nam Ki

doi:10.1007/s00784-021-03792-0

Cited by 14 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(42 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, two recent studies compared full-arch scans before and after the insertion of metal brackets without wires in vivo [ 17 , 20 ]. Kang et al [ 20 ] used a best-fit superimposition with subsequent measurements of intercanine and intermolar distances and found neither significant differences between the two scanners used nor between the situation before and after bracket bonding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interestingly, the mean deviations observed by Kang et al [ 20 ] for the intercanine distance were within the range of deviations seen in the present study, while the deviations for the intermolar distance were substantially larger. Another in vivo approach compared a best-fit superimposition of two full-arch scans prior to orthodontic bracket bonding with another scan after insertion of metal brackets without wires using an IOS also investigated in the present study (CAR) [ 17 ]. A significant increase of deviations after bracket bonding in all regions (anterior, premolars, molars) was observed which was in the upper range of deviations recorded in the present study for the comparable setting (CAR, group B).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, intraoral scanning of teeth with FOAs is completely different from intraoral scanning of “smooth natural teeth.” In the current literature, contradictory findings regarding the influence of buccal brackets on the accuracy of full-arch impressions are described. Two in vitro studies reported no clinically relevant effect of buccal brackets and wires on the impression accuracy [ 14 , 15 ], whereas another in vitro study using artificial saliva as well as a clinical trial described a significant reduction of accuracy due to the presence of attachments [ 16 , 17 ]. Contradictory data are also described regarding the influence of bracket material—metal or ceramic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The transfer accuracy of digital and conventional full-arch impressions influenced by fixed orthodontic appliances: a reference aid–based in vitro study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the influence of fixed orthodontic appliances (FOAs) on the transfer accuracy of full-arch impressions by five intraoral scanners (IOSs): CS3600, Primescan, Trios 4, Medit i500, Emerald S, and one conventional alginate impression (CAI). Materials and methods To compare the data with the actual model situation, an established reference aid–based method was applied. A test model with human teeth was used and modified for each testing group, resulting in five different settings: natural teeth (group A), metal brackets without/with wire (groups B/C), ceramic brackets without/with wire (groups D/E). A total of 300 (n = 12 × 5 × 5) scan datasets of IOSs were analyzed using a 3D software (GOM Inspect) and 60 (n = 12 × 5) plaster casts of CAI were measured with a coordinate measurement machine. The deviations between the reference aid and the impressions were determined. Results For all groups with brackets (B to E), IOSs showed a higher transfer accuracy compared to CAI, even for long-span distances. However, some significant differences between the IOSs were observed (p < 0.05). Conclusions Within the limitations of this in vitro study, IOSs can be recommended for impressions with and without FOAs, even if CAI showed the smallest average deviations in settings without FOAs. Clinical relevance IOSs are widely used in orthodontics and the current study demonstrated that their use enables fast impression taking even in settings with fixed orthodontic appliances. In addition, for these settings, the transfer accuracy is higher than with conventional alginate impressions. Nevertheless, a re-investigation in a clinical setting should be performed to verify the current in vitro findings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The transfer accuracy of digital and conventional full-arch impressions influenced by fixed orthodontic appliances: a reference aid–based in vitro study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Matching intraoral scans (IOS) with the virtually planned reference models seems to be used most frequently and has the advantage that this workflow can be easily applied to clinical as well as in vitro settings, whereas microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) is limited to in vitro studies only. Nevertheless, full arch scanning in the presence of brackets might have an impact on scanning accuracy [33,34] and could therefore affect outcomes achieved with this technology. Previous studies did not evaluate the accuracy of workflows for assessing the accuracy of transfer trays or did not indicate whether the whole process including image registration was repeated to assess reliability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transfer Accuracy of Two 3D Printed Trays for Indirect Bracket Bonding—An In Vitro Pilot Study

Jungbauer¹,

Breunig²,

Schmid

et al. 2021

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study aimed to investigate the impact of hardness from 3D printed transfer trays and dental crowding on bracket bonding accuracy. Lower models (no crowding group: Little’s Irregularity Index (LII) < 3, crowding group: LII > 7, n = 10 per group) were selected at random, digitized, 3D printed, and utilized for semiautomated virtual positioning of brackets and tubes. Hard and soft transfer trays were fabricated with polyjet printing and digital light processing, respectively. Brackets and tubes were transferred to the 3D printed models and altogether digitized using intraoral scanning (IOS) and microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) for assessment of linear and angular deviations. Mean intra- and interrater reliability amounted to 0.67 ± 0.34/0.79 ± 0.16 for IOS, and 0.92 ± 0.05/0.92 ± 0.5 for the micro-CT measurements. Minor linear discrepancies were observed (median: 0.11 mm, Q1–Q3: −0.06–0.28 mm). Deviations in torque (median: 2.49°, Q1–Q3: 1.27–4.03°) were greater than angular ones (median: 1.81°, Q1–Q3: 1.05°–2.90°), higher for hard (median: 2.49°, Q1–Q3: 1.32–3.91°) compared to soft (median: 1.77°, Q1–Q3: 0.94–3.01°) trays (p < 0.001), and torque errors were more pronounced at crowded front teeth (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the clinician should carefully consider the potential impact of hardness and crowding on bracket transfer accuracy, specifically in torque and angular orientation.

show abstract

“…A limitation to the current study may be inaccuracies caused by the multiple approximations of the real object's surfaces in a digital workflow starting with distortions caused during the intraoral scan, 26,27 the subsequent conversion into STL-files, 28 followed by inaccuracies before and during rapid prototyping. These are dependent on the slicer software, the resolution of the printer, printing orientation, support configuration, and the post-printing procedure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indirect bonding: an in-vitro comparison of a Polyjet printed versus a conventional silicone transfer tray

Hofmann¹,

Süpple²,

Glasenapp³

et al. 2022

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To investigate and compare transfer accuracy between a Polyjet printed indirect bonding (IDB) tray (SureSmile, Dentsply Sirona, Richardson, TX, USA) and a conventional two-layered silicone tray. Materials and Methods Plaster models of 24 patients were digitized with an intraoral scanner, and brackets and tubes were positioned virtually on the provider's homepage. IDB trays were designed over the planned attachments and Polyjet 3D-printed. For the conventional tray, brackets and tubes were bonded in their ideal positions manually before fabricating a two-layered silicone tray. For both trays, attachments were transferred indirectly to corresponding models. A second scan was performed of each bonded model to capture actual attachment positions, which were then compared to initial bracket positions using Geomagic Control (3D Systems Inc., Rock Hill, SC, USA). Linear and angular deviations were evaluated for each attachment within a clinically acceptable range of ≤0.2 mm and 1°. A descriptive statistical analysis and a mixed model were executed. Results Both trays showed highest accuracy in the orobuccal direction (99.5% for the 3D-printed tray and 100% for the conventional tray). For the 3D-printed tray, most frequent deviations were found for torque (15.4%) and, for the silicone tray, for rotation (1.9%). A significant difference was observed for angular measurements (P = .004) between the trays. Conclusions Transfer accuracy of Polyjet printed IDB tray is not as high as transfer accuracy of the conventional silicone tray, though both trays show good results and are suitable for clinical application.

show abstract

Accuracy of intraoral scan images in full arch with orthodontic brackets: a retrospective in vivo study

Cited by 14 publications

References 31 publications

The transfer accuracy of digital and conventional full-arch impressions influenced by fixed orthodontic appliances: a reference aid–based in vitro study

The transfer accuracy of digital and conventional full-arch impressions influenced by fixed orthodontic appliances: a reference aid–based in vitro study

Transfer Accuracy of Two 3D Printed Trays for Indirect Bracket Bonding—An In Vitro Pilot Study

Indirect bonding: an in-vitro comparison of a Polyjet printed versus a conventional silicone transfer tray

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About