Journal of Korean Dental Science

  • 제15권2호
  • /
  • Pages.132-140
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2005-4742(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-7651(eISSN)
대한치의학회 (Korean Academy of Dental Science)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Clinical Validity of Tooth Size Measurements Obtained via Digital Methods with Intraoral Scanning

  • Mohammed, Alnefaie (Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Sun-Hyung, Park (Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Jung-Yul, Cha (Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Sung-Hwan, Choi (Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, Yonsei University College of Dentistry)
  • 투고 : 2022.10.09
  • 심사 : 2022.12.08
  • 발행 : 2022.12.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: Dental diagnostic records derived from study models are a popular method of obtaining reliable and vital information. Conventional plaster models are the most common method, however, they are being gradually replaced by digital impressions as technology advances. Moreover, three-dimensional dental models are becoming increasingly common in dental offices, and various methods are available for obtaining them. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the measurement of dental digital models by comparing them with conventional plaster and to determine their clinical validity. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted on 16 patients' maxillary and mandibular dental models. Tooth size (TS), intercanine width (ICW), intermolar width (IMW), and Bolton analysis were taken by using a digital caliper on a plaster model obtained from each patient, while intraoral scans were manually measured using two digital analysis software. A one-way analysis of variance test was used to compare the dental measurements of the three methods. Result: No significant differences were reported between the TS, the ICW and IMW, and the Bolton analysis through the conventional and two digital groups. Conclusion: Measurements of TS, arch width, and Bolton analysis produced from digital models have shown acceptable clinical validity. No significant differences were observed between the three dental measurement techniques.

키워드

과제정보

This research was supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI20C0611).

참고문헌

  1. Kumar AA, Ananthakrishnan MG, Kumar S, Divakar G, Sekar S, Dharani S. Assessing the validity and reliability of tooth widths and bolton ratios obtained from digital models and plaster models. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2022; 14(Suppl 1): S148-51.
  2. Gul Amuk N, Karsli E, Kurt G. Comparison of dental measurements between conventional plaster models, digital models obtained by impression scanning and plaster model scanning. Int Orthod. 2019; 17: 151-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2019.01.014
  3. Zhang F, Suh KJ, Lee KM. Validity of intraoral scans compared with plaster models: an in-vivo comparison of dental measurements and 3D surface analysis. PLoS One. 2016; 11: e0157713. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157713
  4. Park SH, Byun SH, Oh SH, Lee HL, Kim JW, Yang BE, Park IY. Evaluation of the reliability, reproducibility and validity of digital orthodontic measurements based on various digital models among young patients. J Clin Med. 2020; 9: 2728. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9092728
  5. Choi SH, Koh K, Lee KJ, Hwang CJ, Cha JY. Analysis of the morphological characteristics of the palatal rugae for three-dimensional superimposition of digital models in Korean subjects. Biomed Res Int. 2018; 2018: 3936918. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3936918
  6. Camardella LT, Breuning H, de Vasconcellos Vilella O. Accuracy and reproducibility of measurements on plaster models and digital models created using an intraoral scanner. J Orofac Orthop. 2017; 78: 211-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-016-0070-0
  7. Tomita Y, Uechi J, Konno M, Sasamoto S, Iijima M, Mizoguchi I. Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral scanning. Dent Mater J. 2018; 37: 628-33. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-208
  8. Im J, Kim JY, Yu HS, Lee KJ, Choi SH, Kim JH, Ahn HK, Cha JY. Accuracy and efficiency of automatic tooth segmentation in digital dental models using deep learning. Sci Rep. 2022; 12: 9429. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-13595-2
  9. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016; 15: 155-63. Erratum in: J Chiropr Med. 2017; 16: 346.
  10. Sfondrini MF, Gandini P, Malfatto M, Di Corato F, Trovati F, Scribante A. Computerized casts for orthodontic purpose using powder-free intraoral scanners: accuracy, execution time, and patient feedback. Biomed Res Int. 2018; 2018: 4103232.
  11. Murugesan A, Sivakumar A. Comparison of accuracy of mesiodistal tooth measurements made in conventional study models and digital models obtained from intraoral scan and desktop scan of study models. J Orthod. 2020; 47: 149-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465312520910755
  12. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int. 2015; 46: 9-17.
  13. Schlenz MA, Schubert V, Schmidt A, Wostmann B, Ruf S, Klaus K. Digital versus conventional impression taking focusing on interdental areas: a clinical trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17: 4725. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134725
  14. Kim J, Lagravere MO. Accuracy of Bolton analysis measured in laser scanned digital models compared with plaster models (gold standard) and cone-beam computer tomography images. Korean J Orthod. 2016; 46: 13-9. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.1.13
  15. Lee KC, Park SJ. Digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions in reproducing full dental arches: a comparative 3D assessment. Appl Sci. 2020; 10: 7637. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10217637
  16. Lim JH, Mangal U, Nam NE, Choi SH, Shim JS, Kim JE. A comparison of accuracy of different dental restorative materials between intraoral scanning and conventional impression-taking: an in vitro study. Materials (Basel). 2021; 14: 2060. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14082060
  17. Revilla-Leon M, Subramanian SG, Ozcan M, Krishnamurthy VR. Clinical study of the influence of ambient light scanning conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner. J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 107-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13135
  18. Yoon JH, Yu HS, Choi Y, Choi TH, Choi SH, Cha JY. Model analysis of digital models in moderate to severe crowding: in vivo validation and clinical application. Biomed Res Int. 2018; 2018: 8414605.