Reliability of digital orthodontic setups

Abstract

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.)

Accuracy of printed dental models made with 2 prototype technologies and different designs of model bases

“…For treatment planning, segmentation of the dental crowns is required to create a virtual setup. [16][17][18] A virtual setup can then be used to simulate orthodontic treatment to manufacture customized orthodontic appliances. The use of rapid prototyping in dentistry is growing and usually consists of 2 phases.…”

Evaluation of three-dimensional printed virtual setups

“…They were grouped into 3 categories: dimensional accuracy, intra-arch, and interarch. No vertical measurements were taken owing to the difficulty of setting landmark points on the gingival side, as described by Barreto et al 15 Because the gingival part of the models get distorted by the software during the setup process, it is impossible to determine a reliable reference on this part. Consequently, clinical crown height data were not available for comparison with other studies.…”

“…Contrary to Barreto et al's findings, our results showed a statistically significant difference in the maxillary arch length (1.55 mm; P \ 0.05), thus coinciding with Im et al's study. 14,15 Such a difference would also be clinically significant in the treatment outcome, and possibly a limitation of the use of this technology. When we compared our findings with the Hazeveld et al study, 28 the results coincided on a statistically significant difference for the mesiodistal diameters.…”

“…With the use of the treatment planning tool in the Orthoanalyzer software (3Shape), the virtual setups were created and saved as stereolithography (STL) files following the procedure described by Barreto et al (Fig 1). 15 A manual setup was created with each scanned set of models (Fig 2). 32 Both the virtual setup and the manual setup were based on the individual treatment plan, anchorage needs, and extraction pattern, to obtain a desired occlusion according to the Andrews 6 keys.…”

Tooth Segmentation of 3D Scan Data Using Generative Adversarial Networks

“…After acquiring the full arch scan data of the patient, the teeth are segmented and repositioned to the desired position using three-dimensional (3D) CAD software. This is more efficient because it eliminates the process of making a plaster model, and it has been reported to be as effective and accurate as a conventional method [2,3].…”