Does the traditional or digital dental model measurement method affect the results?: A validation study

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy, reliability and reproducibility of measurements made on digital models obtained using OrthoAnalyzer (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) and Materialize 3 matic (MIMICS , Leuven, Belgium) software by comparing them with measurements made on dental plaster models. Methods: The teeth of 50 individuals were measured and plaster models were obtained. In addition, digital images were obtained from the patients with Trios intraoral scanner. A total of 30 linear measurements were made using OrthoAnalyzer and Materialize 3 matic software, including the mesiodistal width of the teeth, arch perimeter, intercanine and intermolar distances. All measurements were made by two different examiners. For the first and second measurements of the first examiner, intraexaminer reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), two way mixed model, consistency type. Results: The largest mean difference between Materialize 3 matic and caliper measurements was -0.136 mm in maxillary right first premolar and maxillary left lateral incisor. The smallest mean difference was 0.0029 mm in the mandibular left lateral incisor. In transverse measurements, the largest mean difference was found in the upper intercanine distance of 0.117 mm, and the smallest mean difference was 0.0086 mm in the upper intermolar distance. The largest mean difference between OrthoAnalyzer and caliper measurements was 0.107 mm in the maxillary right lateral incisor, and the smallest mean difference was 0.0049 mm in the maxillary left lateral incisor. Conclusions: Linear distance measurements with three-dimensional digital models are a valid, reliable and reproducible method compared to plaster models.

Keywords

• 3D scanner
• reliability
• digital models

References

1. 1. Naidu D, Freer TJ. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: a comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(2):304–310. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.011.
2. 2. Cuperus AMR, Harms MC, Rangel FA, Bronkhorst EM, Schols JG, Breuning KH. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Or- thop. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;142(3):308–313. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.03.031.
3. 3. Bootvong K, Liu Z, McGrath C, Hägg U, Wong RW, Bendeus M, et al. Virtual model analysis as an alternative approach to plaster model analysis: reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(5):589–595. doi:hhttps://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp159.
4. 4. Camardella LT, Breuning H, de Vasconcellos Vilella O. Accuracy and reproducibility of measurements on plaster models and dig- ital models created using an intraoral scanner. J Orofac Orthop. 2017;78(3):211–220. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-016- 0070-0.
5. 5. Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster mod- els. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124(1):101–105. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00152-5.
6. 6. Lee KM. Comparison of two intraoral scanners based on three- dimensional surface analysis. Prog Orthod. 2018;19(1):1–7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-018-0205-5.
7. 7. Adobes Martin M, Lipani E, Bernes Martinez L, Al- varado Lorenzo A, Aiuto R, Garcovich D. Reliability of Tooth Width Measurements Delivered by the Clin-Check Pro 6.0 Software on Digital Casts: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(6):3581. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063581.
8. 8. Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ. Compari- son of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(1):16. e1–16. e4. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.019.

9. 9. Abizadeh N, Moles DR, O’Neill J, Noar JH. Digital versus plaster study models: how accurate and re- producible are they? J Orthod. 2012;39(3):151–159. doi:https://doi.org/10.1179/1465312512z.00000000023.
10. 10. de Waard O, Rangel FA, Fudalej PS, Bronkhorst EM, Kuijpers- Jagtman AM, Breuning KH. Reproducibility and accuracy of linear measurements on dental models derived from cone- beam computed tomography compared with digital dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146(3):328–336. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.05.026.
11. 11. Grunheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146(5):673–682. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023.
12. 12. Kau CH, Littlefield J, Rainy N, Nguyen JT, Creed B. Eval- uation of CBCT digital models and traditional models us- ing the Little’s Index. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(3):435–439. doi:https://doi.org/10.2319/083109-491.1.
13. 13. Kim J, Heo G, Lagravère MO. Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to plaster models and cone-beam com- puted tomography. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(3):443–450. doi:https://doi.org/10.2319/051213-365.1.
14. 14. Mullen SR, Martin CA, Ngan P, Gladwin M. Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(3):346–352. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.044.
15. 15. Torassian G, Kau CH, English JD, Powers J, Bussa HI, Marie Salas-Lopez A, et al. Digital models vs plaster models us- ing alginate and alginate substitute materials. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(4):662–669. doi:https://doi.org/10.2319/072409- 413.1.
16. 16. Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Nolthenius HET, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impres- sions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143(1):140–147. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.06.018.
17. 17. Van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y. Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One. 2012. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043312.
18. 18. Koo T, Li M. Cracking the code: providing insight into the fun- damentals of research and evidence-based practice a guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–163. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
19. 19. Fleming P, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011;14(1):1–16. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01503.x.
20. 20. Naidu D, Scott J, Ong D, Ho CT. Validity, reliability and repro- ducibility of three methods used to measure tooth widths for Bolton analyses. Aust Orthod J. 2009;25(2):97–103.
21. 21. Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Ma- jor PW. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessmentrating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measure- ments. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129(6):794–803. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.08.023.