Reliability evaluation of 3-D models when compared with plaster models for mixed dentition analysis

S. Abirami; Ravindra Kumar Jain; S. P. Saravana Dinesh

doi:10.53730/ijhs.v6nS6.11559

Authors

S. Abirami
varshaabi77@gmail.com
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Chennai-600077, Tamil Nadu, India
Ravindra Kumar Jain Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai-600077, Tamil Nadu, India
S. P. Saravana Dinesh Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Chennai-600077, Tamil Nadu, India

Keywords:

mixed dentition analysis, plaster models, digital models, reliability

Abstract

AIM: Inclination towards digital models in orthodontics is increasing and several software programs are available to perform virtual model analyses for diagnosis & treatment planning. The aim of this study was to compare as well assess the accuracy and validity of 3D models over plaster casts for mixed dentition analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted on 16 children from the age group of 8-13 years with mixed dentition. Intraoral scanning using a 3D scanner (MEDIT) to generate digital models of the upper and lower arches, then alginate impressions were taken and models poured. Mixed dentition model analysis, specifically Moyers and Tanaka Johnston analysis, were performed with measurements made on both plaster models using digital vernier calipers and digital models. Obtained data was statistically analyzed using SPSS software (IBM corp, version 13). RESULTS: Statistical analysis of the data comparison between digital and plaster models of both Moyers and Tanaka Johnston mixed dentition analysis gave us a ‘p’ value greater than 0.05 hence proving the null hypothesis. CONCLUSION: When analysing mixed dentition, virtual models are 95% as accurate as plaster models.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Guo L, Feng Y, Guo HG, Liu BW, Zhang Y. Consequences of orthodontic treatment in malocclusion patients: clinical and microbial effects in adults and children. BMC Oral Health. 2016 Oct 28;16(1):112.

Hunter WS. Application of analysis of crowding and spacing of the teeth. Dent Clin North Am. 1978 Oct;22(4):563–77.

HUCKABA, GW. Arch size analysis and tooth size prediction. Dent Clin North Am. 1964;7:431–40.

Indriyanti R, Efendi SH, Maskoen AM, Riyanti E. Predisposing factors analysis of mandibular anterior tooth crowding in the mixed dentition period by the tooth size and dental arch width [Internet]. Vol. 30, Padjadjaran Journal of Dentistry. 2018. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.24198/pjd.vol30no3.18375

Ferguson FS, Macko DJ, Sonnenberg EM, Shakun ML. The use of regression constants in estimating tooth size in a Negro population [Internet]. Vol. 73, American Journal of Orthodontics. 1978. p. 68–72. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(78)90103-3

Moyers RE. Handbook of orthodontics. 1988;

Tanaka MM, Johnston LE. The prediction of the size of unerupted canines and premolars in a contemporary orthodontic population. Vol. 88, The Journal of the American Dental Association. 1974. p. 798–801.

Paula S de, de Paula S, de Oliveira Almeida MA, Lee PCF. Prediction of mesiodistal diameter of unerupted lower canines and premolars using 45° cephalometric radiography. Vol. 107, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1995. p. 309–14.

Bull RL. Radiographic method to estimate the mesiodistal dimension of unerupted teeth. Am J Orthod. 1959;

Bishara SE, Staley RN. Mixed-dentition mandibular arch length analysis: A step-by-step approach using the revised Hixon-Oldfather prediction method. Vol. 86, American Journal of Orthodontics. 1984. p. 130–5.

Staley RN, Hoag JF. Prediction of the mesiodistal widths of maxillary permanent canines and premolars. Am J Orthod. 1978 Feb;73(2):169–77.

Hixon EH, Oldfather RE. Estimation of the sizes of unerupted cuspid and bicuspid teeth. Angle Orthod. 1958;28(4):236–40.

Moyers RE. Handbook of orthodontics for the student and general practitioner. Year Book Medical Publishers Chicago; 1973.

Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R, Zhurov AI. A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. Vol. 35, Journal of Orthodontics. 2008. p. 191–201.

Gowd S, Shankar T, Dash S, Sahoo N, Chatterjee S, Mohanty P. A Comparative Evaluation of Mixed Dentition Analysis on Reliability of Cone Beam Computed Tomography Image Compared to Plaster Model. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2017 Jul;7(4):214–7.

Hunter WS, Priest WR. Errors and discrepancies in measurement of tooth size. J Dent Res. 1960 Mar;39:405–14.

Lee-Chan S, Jacobson BN, Chwa KH, Jacobson RS. Mixed dentition analysis for Asian-Americans. Vol. 113, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1998. p. 293–9.

Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Jul 1;124(1):101–5.

Redlich M, Weinstock T, Abed Y, Schneor R, Holdstein Y, Fischer A. A new system for scanning, measuring and analyzing dental casts based on a 3D holographic sensor. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2008 May;11(2):90–5.

Sanches JO, dos Santos-Pinto LAM, dos Santos-Pinto A, Grehs B, Jeremias F. Comparison of space analysis performed on plaster vs. digital dental casts applying Tanaka and Johnston’s equation. Vol. 18, Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics. 2013. p. 128–33.

Construction and testing of a computer-based intraoral laser scanner for determining tooth positions. Med Eng Phys. 2000 Nov 1;22(9):625–35.

Kusnoto B, Evans CA. Reliability of a 3D surface laser scanner for orthodontic applications. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002 Oct;122(4):342–8.

Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011 Feb;14(1):1–16.

Reuschl RP, Heuer W, Stiesch M, Wenzel D, Dittmer MP. Reliability and validity of measurements on digital study models and plaster models [Internet]. Vol. 38, The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2016. p. 22–6.

Durgekar S, Naik V. Evaluation of Moyers mixed dentition analysis in school children. Vol. 20, Indian Journal of Dental Research. 2009. p. 26.

Kondapaka V, Sesham VM, Neela PK, Mamillapalli PK. A comparison of seven mixed dentition analysis methods and to evaluate the most reliable one in Nalgonda population. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2015 Mar 1;49(1):3–9.

Zilberman O, Huggare JAV, Parikakis KA. Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod. 2003 Jun;73(3):301–6.

Garino F, Garino GB. Comparison of dental arch measurements between stone and digital casts. World J Orthod. 2002;3(3):250–4.

Tomassetti JJ, Taloumis LJ, Denny JM, Fischer JR Jr. A comparison of 3 computerized Bolton tooth-size analyses with a commonly used method. Angle Orthod. 2001 Oct;71(5):351–7.

Sousa MVS, Vasconcelos EC, Janson G, Garib D, Pinzan A. Accuracy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measurements. Vol. 142, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2012. p. 269–73.

Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: Comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Vol. 129, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2006. p. 794–803.

Coleman RM, Hembree JH, Weber FN. Dimensional stability of irreversible hydrocolloid impression material. Vol. 75, American Journal of Orthodontics. 1979. p. 438–46.

Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Tutein Nolthenius HE, 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 impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Jan;143(1):140–7.

Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Sep;144(3):471–8.

H H, Hussien H, Mallesh N. A Comparative Study of Conventional versus Digital Impression Taking in Implant Dentistry- A Systematic Review. Vol. 8, Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences. 2019. p. 3362–7.

Quimby ML, Vig KWL, Rashid RG, Firestone AR. The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. Angle Orthod. 2004 Jun;74(3):298–303.

Comparison of dental measurements between conventional plaster models, digital models obtained by impression scanning and plaster model scanning. Int Orthod. 2019 Mar 1;17(1):151–8.

Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi CL. Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Feb;149(2):161–70.

Suryasa, W. (2019). Historical Religion Dynamics: Phenomenon in Bali Island. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, 11(6), 1679-1685.

Asriyati, P. E., Swarjana, I. K., Sastriani, N. L. A., & Krisnandari, A. A. I. W. (2021). The effect of electronic discharge planning with SBAR approach to optimize the implementation of patient discharge. International Journal of Health & Medical Sciences, 4(3), 280-287. https://doi.org/10.31295/ijhms.v4n3.1750