Imaging Sci Dent.  2019 Dec;49(4):257-263. 10.5624/isd.2019.49.4.257.

Three-dimensional comparison of 2 digital models obtained from cone-beam computed tomographic scans of polyvinyl siloxane impressions and plaster models

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea.
  • 2Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea. sshan@yuhs.ac
  • 3Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea. jungcha@yuhs.ac

Abstract

PURPOSE
This study was performed to evaluate the dimensional accuracy of digital dental models constructed from cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) scans of polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impressions and cast scan models.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A pair of PVS impressions was obtained from 20 subjects and scanned using CBCT (resolution, 0.1 mm). A cast scan model was constructed by scanning the gypsum model using a model scanner. After reconstruction of the digital models, the mesio-distal width of each tooth, inter-canine width, and inter-molar width were measured, and the Bolton ratios were calculated and compared. The 2 models were superimposed and the difference between the models was measured using 3-dimensional analysis.
RESULTS
The range of mean error between the cast scan model and the CBCT scan model was −0.15 mm to 0.13 mm in the mesio-distal width of the teeth and 0.03 mm to 0.42 mm in the width analysis. The differences in the Bolton ratios between the cast scan models and CBCT scan models were 0.87 (anterior ratio) and 0.72 (overall ratio), with no significant difference (P>0.05). The mean maxillary and mandibular difference when the cast scan model and the CBCT scan model were superimposed was 53 µm.
CONCLUSION
There was no statistically significant difference in most of the measurements. The maximum tooth size difference was 0.15 mm, and the average difference in model overlap was 53 µm. Digital models produced by scanning impressions at a high resolution using CBCT can be used in clinical practice.

Keyword

Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Orthodontics; Dental Models

MeSH Terms

Calcium Sulfate
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Dental Models
Orthodontics
Polyvinyls*
Siloxanes*
Tooth
Calcium Sulfate
Polyvinyls
Siloxanes

Figure

  • Fig. 1 The cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) equipment and model scanner used in this study. A. CBCT equipment (Rayscan α+; Ray Co., Ltd., Seongnam, Korea). B. CBCT scanning of a polyvinyl siloxane impression. C. Fabrication of a digital model from a model scanner (Identica Hybrid; Medit Co, Seoul, Korea).

  • Fig. 2 Three-dimensional digital models of the plaster casts were obtained using a model scanner (A and B) and cone-beam computed tomography (C and D), respectively.

  • Fig. 3 Linear measurements of tooth width (A, B, and C), and arch width (D) were made on the digital models.

  • Fig. 4 Three-dimensional analysis of a cast scan model and a cone-beam computed tomography scan model based on the best-fit algorithm. A and B. Deviations between the 2 models. The difference color map is set from −0.5 mm to 0.5 mm.

  • Fig. 5 Box-plot of dimensional discrepancies between the cast scan models and cone-beam computed tomography scan models. *Maximum outliers.


Reference

1. Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011; 14:1–16.
Article
2. Horton HM, Miller JR, Gaillard PR, Larson BE. Technique comparison for efficient orthodontic tooth measurements using digital models. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80:254–261.
Article
3. Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136:16.e1–16.e4.
Article
4. Mullen SR, Martin CA, Ngan P, Gladwin M. Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132:346–352.
Article
5. Reuschl RP, Heuer W, Stiesch M, Wenzel D, Dittmer MP. Reliability and validity of measurements on digital study models and plaster models. Eur J Orthod. 2016; 38:22–26.
Article
6. Lim MY, Lim SH. Comparison of model analysis measurements among plaster model, laser scan digital model, and cone beam CT image. Korean J Orthod. 2009; 39:6–17.
Article
7. Maret D, Telmon N, Peters OA, Lepage B, Treil J, Inglèse JM, et al. Effect of voxel size on the accuracy of 3D reconstructions with cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012; 41:649–655.
Article
8. Lee SM, Hou Y, Cho JH, Hwang HS. Dimensional accuracy of digital dental models from cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions according to time elapsed after the impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016; 149:287–294.
9. Jiang T, Lee SM, Hou Y, Chang X, Hwang HS. Evaluation of digital dental models obtained from dental cone-beam computed tomography scan of alginate impressions. Korean J Orthod. 2016; 46:129–136.
Article
10. 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; 143:140–147.
Article
11. 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. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 129:794–803.
Article
12. Bishara SE, Jakobsen JR, Abdallah EM, Fernandez Garcia A. Comparisons of mesiodistal and buccolingual crown dimensions of the permanent teeth in three populations from Egypt, Mexico, and the United States. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989; 96:416–422.
13. Mayers M, Firestone AR, Rashid R, Vig KW. Comparison of peer assessment rating (PAR) index scores of plaster and computer-based digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128:431–434.
Article
14. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109:121–128.
15. 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; 11:90–95.
Article
16. Aalaei S, Adli AR, Mansoorali MR, Gholami F. Dimensional stability of two polyvinyl siloxane impression materials in different time intervals. J Dent Biomater. 2015; 2:155–161.
17. Akyalcin S, Dyer DJ, English JD, Sar C. Comparison of 3-dimensional dental models from different sources: diagnostic accuracy and surface registration analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144:831–837.
Article
18. 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; 146:328–336.
Article
19. Bazi Y, Bruzzone L, Melgani F. Image thresholding based on the EM algorithm and the generalized Gaussian distribution. Pattern Recogn. 2007; 40:619–634.
Article
20. Grünheid 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; 146:673–682.
Article
Full Text Links
  • ISD
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr