Comparison of the occlusal contact area of virtual models and actual models: a comparative in vitro study on Class I and Class II malocclusion models

Lee, Hyemin; Cha, Jooly; Chun, Yang Sook; Kim, Min Ji

doi:10.1186/s12903-018-0566-7

Cited by 20 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, due to high technical skills requirements and errors from the users, the measurements may have questionable accuracy. Hence, the 3D face scan and intraoral scan can be integrated with a CBCT scan for the facial analysis, occlusion analysis, and even digital/virtual face bow transfer and full mouth rehabilitation [22,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. The data from CBCT, intraoral scans, and facial scans can be superimposed to create a 3D "virtual patient" for better diagnosis, treatment planning, and patient outcomes [22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Accuracy of Digital Face Scans Obtained from 3D Scanners: An In Vitro Study

Amornvit

Sanohkan

2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Face scanners promise wide applications in medicine and dentistry, including facial recognition, capturing facial emotions, facial cosmetic planning and surgery, and maxillofacial rehabilitation. Higher accuracy improves the quality of the data recorded from the face scanner, which ultimately, will improve the outcome. Although there are various face scanners available on the market, there is no evidence of a suitable face scanner for practical applications. The aim of this in vitro study was to analyze the face scans obtained from four scanners; EinScan Pro (EP), EinScan Pro 2X Plus (EP+) (Shining 3D Tech. Co., Ltd. Hangzhou, China), iPhone X (IPX) (Apple Store, Cupertino, CA, USA), and Planmeca ProMax 3D Mid (PM) (Planmeca USA, Inc. IL, USA), and to compare scans obtained from various scanners with the control (measured from Vernier caliper). This should help to identify the appropriate scanner for face scanning. A master face model was created and printed from polylactic acid using the resolution of 200 microns on x, y, and z axes and designed in Rhinoceros 3D modeling software (Rhino, Robert McNeel and Associates for Windows, Washington DC, USA). The face models were 3D scanned with four scanners, five times, according to the manufacturer’s recommendations; EinScan Pro (Shining 3D Tech. Co., Ltd. Hangzhou, China), EinScan Pro 2X Plus (Shining 3D Tech. Co., Ltd. Hangzhou, China) using Shining Software, iPhone X (Apple Store, Cupertino, CA, USA) using Bellus3D Face Application (Bellus3D, version 1.6.2, Bellus3D, Inc. Campbell, CA, USA), and Planmeca ProMax 3D Mid (PM) (Planmeca USA, Inc. IL, USA). Scan data files were saved as stereolithography (STL) files for the measurements. From the STL files, digital face models are created in the computer using Rhinoceros 3D modeling software (Rhino, Robert McNeel and Associates for Windows, Washington DC, USA). Various measurements were measured five times from the reference points in three axes (x, y, and z) using a digital Vernier caliper (VC) (Mitutoyo 150 mm Digital Caliper, Mitutoyo Co., Kanagawa, Japan), and the mean was calculated, which was used as the control. Measurements were measured on the digital face models of EP, EP+, IPX, and PM using Rhinoceros 3D modeling software (Rhino, Robert McNeel and Associates for Windows, Washington DC, USA). The descriptive statistics were done from SPSS version 20 (IBM Company, Chicago, USA). One-way ANOVA with post hoc using Scheffe was done to analyze the differences between the control and the scans (EP, EP+, IPX, and PM). The significance level was set at p = 0.05. EP+ showed the highest accuracy. EP showed medium accuracy and some lesser accuracy (accurate until 10 mm of length), but IPX and PM showed the least accuracy. EP+ showed accuracy in measuring the 2 mm of depth (diameter 6 mm). All other scanners (EP, IPX, and PM) showed less accuracy in measuring depth. Finally, the accuracy of an optical scan is dependent on the technology used by each scanner. It is recommended to use EP+ for face scanning.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Accuracy of Digital Face Scans Obtained from 3D Scanners: An In Vitro Study

Amornvit

Sanohkan

2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several new technologies have become available that can be used for occlusal assessment . T‐scan is a computerized technology that records the distribution of occlusal contacts in a time sequence, and it has been described in several studies .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some 3D scanning software packages can illustrate OCA, highlighting the different interocclusal distances in different colors. Although 3D scanning has recently been used to measure the OCA in plaster models, the reliability of the method was not reported . Reliability measures the degree of reproducibility and discrimination between individuals and thus relates the measurement error to the variability between subjects .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and Validity of T‐scan and 3D Intraoral Scanning for Measuring the Occlusal Contact Area

Ayuso‐Montero

Mariano-Hernandez

Khoury‐Ribas

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To determine the reliability of T‐scan and 3D intraoral scan techniques for assessing the occlusal contact area (OCA), compared to occlusal registration and also to assess the validity of the techniques. Materials and Methods Thirty‐one dentate adults participated in this cross‐sectional study. T‐scan records were used to measure the OCA at maximum bite force and at 50% of maximum force using the software's bite force selection tool. A second method measured the OCA between 2 virtual models scanned intraorally using a 3D surface scan and considering the occlusal contact at 2 interocclusal distances (0‐100 and 0‐200 µm). The third method measured OCA using occlusal registration at moderate and maximum occlusal force, and considering contact at the 2 interocclusal distances (0‐100 and 0‐200 µm). Images obtained using the 3 methods were analyzed using ImageJ software. Test‐retest reliability was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and validity by Pearson correlations. Results ICCs ranged from 0.56 to 0.79 (p < 0.001) for the T‐scan; 0.37 to 0.61 (p < 0.05) for 3D surface scan; and 0.92 to 0.95 (p < 0.0005) for occlusal registration. The highest OCA values were obtained using the T‐scan, and the lowest using the 3D surface scan. Occlusal registration measurements had the highest correlations with those of the other techniques. Conclusions T‐scan is a reliable method for measuring the OCA, but the 3D surface scan is not. Occlusal registration showed a high validity.

show abstract

“…Regarding the 3Shape system, Lee et al, determined the accuracy of the occlusal contact areas between stone casts mounted in an articulator and virtual scans obtained with the 3Shape system. The authors concluded that computerized occlusal analysis can be used for diagnostic purposes, but the software limitations have to be considered for clinical use, as well as the scanning technique which must be developed [21].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical occlusion analysis versus semi-adjustable articulator and virtual articulator occlusion analysis

Buduru

Finta

Almășan

et al. 2020

Medicine and Pharmacy Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims. Identifying the optimal method for occlusion analysis by comparing examination sensitivity of the static and dynamic occlusion using three systems: clinical occlusion analysis, semi-adjustable articulator and virtual articulator (3Shape, Denmark) occlusion analysis. Methods. The occlusion analysis of sixteen patients was performed using the three systems. In order to analyze the number of concordant and discordant points and trajectories, the clinical method was compared to the semi-adjustable articulator and to the computerized method. Results. The greatest correspondence was obtained by comparing the clinical and the articulator methods, having a success rate of 85.25%, versus the clinical and the computerized method with a success rate of 73.25%. The propulsion registered the highest discrepancies: 35% in case of the semi-adjustable articulator comparison and 62% in case of the virtual articulator comparison. Conclusions. The semi-adjustable articulator was superior in static and dynamic occlusion analysis compared to the virtual articulator. The analysis of the dynamic occlusion is the most problematic due to its dependency on the individual anatomy of the glenoid fossa which cannot be exactly reproduced by any articulator.

show abstract

Comparison of the occlusal contact area of virtual models and actual models: a comparative in vitro study on Class I and Class II malocclusion models

Cited by 20 publications

References 35 publications

The Accuracy of Digital Face Scans Obtained from 3D Scanners: An In Vitro Study

The Accuracy of Digital Face Scans Obtained from 3D Scanners: An In Vitro Study

Reliability and Validity of T‐scan and 3D Intraoral Scanning for Measuring the Occlusal Contact Area

Clinical occlusion analysis versus semi-adjustable articulator and virtual articulator occlusion analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About