Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts

Leifert, Michael F.; Leifert, Melvyn M.; Efstratiadis, Stella; Cangialosi, Thomas J.

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.019

Cited by 186 publications

(152 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

122

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean intraobserver values include the sum of all five measurements taken to establish a Little's Irregularity Index. Thus, the intraobserver mean differences for measurements taken between OrthoCAD and InVivo yield an approximate average tooth-to-tooth measure- 4,5,12 These results indicate that Little's Irregularity Index, overbite, and overjet measurements taken with InVivoDental software from a CBCT are also clinically acceptable. In addition, the times taken to make measurements using both software systems were comparable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…Some comparisons of dental casts and digital scans of their impressions have found small, but significant differences between measurements when using certain measurement criteria but still allow clinically acceptable measurements. [3][4][5] Other studies using alternate measurement criteria, such as the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System, have found digital scans to have insufficient accuracy for several individual measurements compared with plaster casts [6][7][8] ; however, such stringent measurement tolerances are not required for clinical efficacy. The reliability of measurements taken on digital models from impressions has been proven to be as good as or better than measurements taken on plaster casts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of CBCT Digital Models and Traditional Models Using the Little's Index

Kau¹,

Littlefield²,

Rainy³

et al. 2010

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To determine if measurements obtained from digital models from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were comparable to the traditional method of digital study models by impressions. Materials and Methods: Digital models of 30 subjects were used. InVivoDental (Anatomage, San Jose, Calif) software was used to analyze CBCT scans taken by a Galileos cone beam scanner (Sirona, Charlotte, NC) with a field of view of 15 3 15 3 15 cm 3 and a voxel resolution of 0.125 mm. OrthoCAD (Cadent, Fairview, NJ) software was used to analyze impression scans of patients at different stages of orthodontic treatment. Impressions were taken using alginate and were mailed to OrthoCAD for digital conversion. The scans were then electronically returned in digital format for analysis. Results: The maxillary mean scores for the Little's Index were 9.65 mm for digital models and 8.87 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The mandibular mean scores for the Little's Index were 6.41 mm for digital models and 6.27 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The mean overjet measurements were 3.32 mm for digital models and 3.52 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The overbite measurements were 2.29 mm for digital models and 2.26 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The paired t-test showed no statistical significance between the differences in all measurements. Conclusions: CBCT digital models are as accurate as OrthoCAD digital models in making linear measurements for overjet, overbite, and crowding measurements (Angle Orthod. 2010;80:435-439.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of CBCT Digital Models and Traditional Models Using the Little's Index

Kau¹,

Littlefield²,

Rainy³

et al. 2010

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To relate the outcomes to the initial situations prior to orthodontic treatment, manual measurements were performed on the T1 and T0 casts , including intercanine distance [1,7,8,11] and overjet [7,25]. The treatment-related changes of these parameters were obtained by calculating the difference between T0 and T1.…”

Section: Determination Of Treatment-related Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Post-treatment changes in permanent retention

Wolf

Schulte

Küpper³

et al. 2016

J Orofac Orthop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES While permanent retention is today the method of choice to stabilize orthodontic treatment outcomes, recent studies have increasingly reported posttreatment changes in tooth position during permanent retention. We conducted this study to analyze changes in the anterior mandible, whether the changes follow an underlying movement pattern, and, aiming for a preventive strategy, whether any risk factors could be identified comparing findings with the pretreatment situations. METH-ODS We included 30 patients who had worn fixed Twistflex retainers (UK 3-3) extending from canine to canine in the mandible. Casts reflecting the intraoral situations before orthodontic treatment (T0), directly after completion of active therapy (T1), and 6 months later (T2) were scanned and superimposed using Imageware Surfacer software. Posttreatment changes (T2-T1) of tooth position within the retainer block were analyzed on 3D virtual models and were compared to pretreatment (T0) and treatment-related (T1-T0) findings to identify potential risk factors. RESULTS Almost all analyzed patients revealed three-dimensional changes in tooth position within the retainer block. Comparing these movements, we repeatedly found rotated retainer blocks in labio-oral direction, while the center of rotation was located at the first incisors. This pattern was associated with intercanine expansion and excessive overjet correction during orthodontic treatment. The canines underwent the most pronounced (rotational and translational) movements. CONCLUSIONS In general permanent lingual retainers are safe but in special clinical cases retainers can induce undesired tooth movement. Risk factors seem to be intercanine expansion and excessive overjet correction during orthodontic treatment. In specific cases an additional retention device might be needed. AbstractObjectives. While permanent retention is today frequently the method of choice to stabilize orthodontic treatment outcomes, recent studies have increasingly reported posttreatment changes in tooth position during permanent retention. We conducted this study to analyze such changes in the anterior mandible, whether these follow an underlying movement pattern, and, aiming for a preventive strategy, whether any risk factors could be identified by comparing findings to the pretreatment situations. Methods.We included 30 patients who had worn a fixed Twistflex retainer extending from canine to canine in the mandible. Casts reflecting the intraoral situations before orthodontic treatment (T0), directly upon completion of active therapy (T1), and 6 months into retention (T2) were scanned and superposed using Imageware Surfacer software. Posttreatment changes (T2−T1) in tooth position inside the retainer block were analyzed on 3D virtual models and were compared to pretreatment (T0) and treatment-related (T1−T0) findings to identify potential risk factors.Results. Almost all patients revealed three-dimensional changes in tooth position within the retainer block. On comparing these movements...

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the scanners provide more convenient access to study the models. 1 Some studies have reported the difference between the plaster models and computer digital models to be clinically acceptable. 2,3 Whetten et al 4 further studied the clinical implication in orthodontic treatment planning and reported that digital models are an acceptable alternative to plaster models in treatment planning for patients with Class II malocclusions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts

Cited by 186 publications

References 5 publications

Evaluation of CBCT Digital Models and Traditional Models Using the Little's Index

Evaluation of CBCT Digital Models and Traditional Models Using the Little's Index

Post-treatment changes in permanent retention

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About