Reliability and intra-examiner agreement of orthodontic model analysis with a digital caliper on plaster and printed dental models

Effect of print orientation on the dimensional accuracy and cost-effectiveness of rapid-prototyped dental models using a PolyJet photopolymerization printer: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of the dental models 3D printed in vertical and horizontal orientation as compared to the conventional plaster and digital models.

METHODS

This study involved scanning 50 plaster models using Maestro 3D Desktop Scanner (AGE Solutions, Pisa, Italy). The STL file obtained from the scanner was processed and three-dimensionally (3D) printed in the horizontal and vertical orientation using a PolyJet 3D printer (Objet 30 prime, Stratasys Ltd., Eden Prairie, Minnesota, United States). The accuracy of the rapid-prototyped (3D printed) models was measured from the pre-determined landmarks and was compared among the groups. In addition, determining the cost-effectiveness of the 3D printed models in different orientations was based on the amount of material (resin) utilized during the 3D printing process. ANOVA was used to determine the accuracy of the models.

RESULTS

There were statistically insignificant differences (P>0.05) among rapid-prototyped models (≤0.06mm) compared to plaster models and digital models for the linear measurements made in all three planes of space. The dental models printed in the horizontal orientation were found to be more cost-effective than those printed in a vertical orientation in terms of the amount of material (resin) utilized and printing time during the 3D printing process.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of rapid-prototyped models 3D printed in the horizontal and vertical orientations was comparable to the plaster models and digital models for clinical applications. Horizontally printed models were more cost-effective than vertically printed models.

Comparison of light transmittance and color changes between polyurethane and copolyester retainer materials after staining and destaining

BACKGROUND

Retainers are the only effective approach to prevent orthodontic relapse. The aim of this study was to compare the changes in color and light-transmittance of rough and smooth thermoformed polyurethane and copolymer retainer samples after staining in different solutions and destaining with different approaches.

METHODS

Four hundred copolyester (Essix® ACE) and 400 polyurethane (Zendura®) samples with different surface textures, smooth and rough, were stained in 4 different solutions (n = 100 per solution) over 28 days. Each of the four groups of 100 stained samples of each material was subdivided into 5 groups of 20 samples and subjected to different destaining solutions. Light transmittance and color changes were evaluated using a spectrometer and a spectrophotometer. Mean differences were compared using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and posthoc multiple comparison tests at P = 0.05.

RESULTS

No significant differences in light transmittance were found between both untreated materials. Both materials were stained in a similar fashion and showed no significant differences between two materials after staining. Coffee and tea stained both materials more significantly than wine, but there was a significant difference of changes of color and light transmittance between rough and smooth surfaces during the destaining in coffee- and tea-stained samples of copolyester material. All destaining solutions were effective at removing all stains on the samples. The surface roughness of the material plays a significant role in the ability of the materials to be destained, demonstrating a more significant greater effect on cleaning rough samples for improvements in light-transmittance and greater changes in color.

CONCLUSIONS

This study concluded that the surface of materials plays a significant role in the material destaining and staining. In addition, the different polymers used for retainer fabrication exhibited different responses during the destaining process depending on types of stains.

Reliability and time-based efficiency of artificial intelligence-based automatic digital model analysis system

OBJECTIVES

To compare the reliability, reproducibility, and time-based efficiency of automatic digital (AD) and manual digital (MD) model analyses using intraoral scan models.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two examiners analysed 26 intraoral scanner records using MD and AD methods for orthodontic modelling. Tooth size reproducibility was confirmed using a Bland-Altman plot. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted to compare the model analysis parameters (tooth size, sum of 12-teeth, Bolton analysis, arch width, arch perimeter, arch length discrepancy, and overjet/overbite) for each method, including the time taken for model analysis.

RESULTS

The MD group exhibited a relatively larger spread of 95% agreement limits when compared with AD group. The standard deviations of repeated tooth measurements were 0.15 mm (MD group) and 0.08 mm (AD group). The mean difference values of the 12-tooth (1.80-2.38 mm) and arch perimeter (1.42-3.23 mm) for AD group was significantly (P < 0.001) larger than that for the MD group. The arch width, Bolton, and overjet/overbite were clinically insignificant. The overall mean time required for the measurements was 8.62 min and 0.56 min for the MD and AD groups, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Validation results may vary in different clinical cases because our evaluation was limited to mild-to-moderate crowding in the complete dentition.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences were observed between AD and MD groups. The AD method demonstrated reproducible analysis in a considerably reduced timeframe, along with a significant difference in measurements compared to the MD method. Therefore, AD analysis should not be interchanged with MD, and vice versa.

Accuracy and eligibility of Bonwill⁃Hawley arch form established by CBCT image for dental crowding measurement: a comparative study with the conventional brass wire and caliper methods

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to develop a novel Bonwill⁃Hawley method (Bonwill⁃Hawley arch form based on CBCT image) for the assessment of dental crowding, and to investigate and compare the accuracy and eligibility with the conventional brass wire and caliper methods under different crowding conditions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty patients with the pair of plaster casts and CBCT data were collected. All the casts were marked and transformed into digital models using iTero scanner, and imported into OrthoCAD software to measure the required space. Using the conventional brass wire (M1) and caliper methods (M2), the available space and dental crowding were measured and calculated basing on digital models, respectively. Correspondingly, the axial planes in the level of dental arches were oriented and captured from the CBCT images to draw the Bonwill⁃Hawley arch forms (M3), which were used to measure and calculate the available space and dental crowding. For each method, intra and inter-examiner reliabilities were evaluated with intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs). Wilcoxon test and Kruskal-Wallis test were performed for statistically analyzing the discrepancy among different groups.

RESULTS

Both intra- and inter-examiner reliability were generally excellent for all parameters obtained by the three methods, except for the dental crowding measured using M1(ICC: 0.473/0.261). The dental crowding measured using M2 were significantly increased in mild, moderate and severe-crowding groups compared with M1. However, no significant difference was detected between M1 and M3 in severe-crowding group (maxilla, p = 0.108 > 0.05; mandible, p = 0.074 > 0.05). With the deterioration of crowding condition, the discrepancy of dental crowding between M1 and M2, or M1 and M3 were significantly decreased (maxilla, M2-M1, mild VS serve, p = 0.003 < 0.05; maxilla, M3-M1, mild VS serve, p = 0.003 < 0.05; mandible, M2-M1, mild VS serve, p = 0.000 < 0.001; mandible, M3-M1, mild VS serve, p = 0.043 < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Dental crowding measured using the novel Bonwill⁃Hawley method was relatively greater than the caliper method, but not exceeding the brass wire method, which wound gradually come close to the brass wire method with the deterioration of crowding condition.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The Bonwill⁃Hawley method basing on CBCT image proved to be a reliable and acceptable choice for orthodontists to analyze the dental crowding.

Incisor irregularity and dental arch dimensions changes in subjects with different severity of anterior crowding: a 37-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Occlusal stability is one of the goals of orthodontic treatment, and keeping teeth aligned in the long term is a challenge for the orthodontist. This study aimed to compare the long-term incisors irregularity and dental arches dimensions changes in subjects treated with 4 premolar extractions with different pretreatment Little's irregularity index (LII). The knowledge of long-term outcomes is evidence-based information for the prognosis of future treatments.

METHODS

In total, 41 treated subjects were divided into two groups according to mandibular Little irregularity value at pretreatment (mild or severe). The maxillary and mandibular LII, transversal, and longitudinal widths were assessed at pretreatment, posttreatment, and 37-year posttreatment. Chi-square and independent t tests were used for intergroup comparison.

RESULTS

The groups presented similar behavior for all stages of maxillary and mandibular arch dimensions changes. Maxillary irregularity was corrected in both groups after treatment, and the alignment was acceptable in the long term. In the mild group, the mandibular incisor irregularity returned to pretreatment values in the long term. The mandibular LII increased in the severe group but did not return to pretreatment values in the long term.

CONCLUSIONS

The mild crowding group presented proportionally more relapse of mandibular incisor irregularity than the severe crowding group in the long term. Even so, the correction of mild and severe crowding with the extraction of 4 premolars showed satisfactory results in the long term, even with the presence of maturational changes and relapse.

Comparison of intraoral scanning and CBCT to generate digital and 3D-printed casts by fused deposition modeling and digital light processing

OBJECTIVES

to evaluate trueness and precision of digital casts from intraoral scanning (IOS) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT); trueness and precision of 3D-printed casts using digital light processing (DLP) and fused deposition modeling (FDM); the influence of digitizing method in the 3D-printed casts and, to compare STL data after DICOM segmentation and conversion.

METHODS

a reference cast was digitized with IOS and CBCT, and 3D-printed using FDM and DLP. Linear measurements of occlusocervical (OC), interarch (IEA), and mesiodistal (MD) dimensions were taken on reference, digital and 3D-printed casts. Trueness was observed as the distortion, and precision was observed as the variation of measurements. One and Two-way ANOVA, Student t-test, and Chi-Square were applied to analyze data.

RESULTS

distortion varied between digital casts for all dimensions; at OC, both showed expanded dimensions with IOS being significantly greater; in turn, CBCT digital casts showed higher distortion at IEA and MD. Dimensions of 3D-printed casts showed a predominance of shrinkage, DLP presented higher distortion compared to FDM for both digitizing methods. Digitizing methods influenced the 3D-printing of casts, especially for DLP. Regarding precision, no statistical difference was found. STL converted from DICOM showed statistical difference in IEA (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

digital casts showed distortion depending on the digitizing method. IOS was better in IEA and MD, and CBCT in OC dimensions. Overall, DLP casts presented higher distortion compared to FDM. The digitizing method influences trueness on 3D-printed casts. File conversion from DICOM to STL per se could change the dimension.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This investigation showed that digital casts from IOS and CBCT as well 3D-printed casts from FDM and DLP can show different trueness. It is clinically relevant as clinicians have various workflows available in Digital Dentistry which involve these digitizing and manufacturing methods.

Accuracy of three-dimensional printed models derived from cone-beam computed tomography

OBJECTIVES

To determine the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) printed models fabricated from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of human mandibular dry skulls in comparison with models derived from intraoral scanner (IOS) data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six human mandibular dry skulls were scanned by IOS and CBCT. Digital models (DMs) constructed from the IOS and CBCT data were fabricated physically using a 3D printer. The width and thickness of individual teeth and intercanine and molar widths were measured using a digital caliper. The accuracy of the DMs was compared between IOS and CBCT. Paired t-tests were used for intergroup comparisons.

RESULTS

All intraclass correlation coefficient values for the three measurements (mesial-distal, buccal-lingual, width) exceeded 0.9. For the mandibular teeth, there were significant discrepancies in model accuracy between the IOS (average discrepancies of 0.18 ± 0.08 mm and 0.16 ± 0.12 mm for width and thickness, respectively) and CBCT (0.28 ± 0.07 mm for width, 0.37 ± 0.2 mm for thickness; P &lt; .01). Intercanine (P = .38) and molar widths (P = .41) showed no significant difference between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a statistically significant difference in the accuracy of DMs obtained from CBCT and IOS; however, this did not seem to result in any important clinical difference. CBCT could be routinely used as an orthodontic diagnostic tool and for appliance construction.

Agreement of the Discrepancy Index Obtained Using Digital and Manual Techniques—A Comparative Study

The discrepancy index evaluates the complexity of the initial orthodontic diagnosis. The objective is to compare whether there is a difference in the final discrepancy index score of the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) when obtained using digital and manual techniques. Fifty-six initial orthodontic records in a digital and physical format were included (28 each) in 2022 at the Center for Research and Advanced Studies in Dentistry. For the digital measurements, iTero and TRIOS 3 intraoral scanners were used, along with Insignia software and cephalometric tracing with Dolphin Imaging software. Manual measurements were obtained in dental casts using the ruler indicated for the previously mentioned discrepancy index, in addition to conventional cephalometric tracing. Student’s t-test did not show statistically significant differences between the digital and manual techniques, with final discrepancy index scores of 24.61 (13.34) and 24.86 (14.14), respectively (p = 0.769). Cohen’s kappa index showed very good agreement between both categorical measurements (kappa value = 1.00, p = 0.001). The Bland–Altman method demonstrated a good agreement between continuous measurements obtained by both techniques with a bias of 0.2500 (superior limit of agreement =9.0092988, inferior limit of agreement = −8.5092988). Excellent agreement was observed in obtaining the discrepancy index through digital technique (Intraoral scanning and digital records) and manual technique (conventional records).

Evaluation of the impact of reference tooth morphology and alignment on model measurement accuracy

Background

The development of personalized and high-precision dental treatment is inseparable from the accurate measurement and analysis of the model. Compared with traditional plaster models, digital models allow dentists to obtain richer and more detailed inspection results. However, the measurement of digital models in clinical practice usually ignores the influence of the overall three-dimensional (3D) structure of teeth and tooth arrangement on the measurement results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of calibrated tooth axis and tooth arrangement on tooth width and arch length.

Methods

A total of 110 digital models from 80 participants were used to measure teeth width and dental arch length using the following methods: Method A, simple positioning of the proximal and distal of teeth; Method B: calibration of the clinical crown axis; and Method C: calibration of the overall 3D axis of the teeth. The Measurand model included pre- and post-orthodontic models of the same patients to assess the impact of tooth alignment on outcomes.

Results

In the aligned dentition, whether the tooth axis was calibrated had no effect on the measurement results. On unaligned dentitions, calibrating the pinion allowed for more accurate measurements, with Method C the closest to the true size. Furthermore, the arrangement of teeth affected the measurement, but there was no continuous linear correlation with arch length discrepancy (ALD).

Conclusions

Clinicians should choose appropriate measurement methods according to actual needs when performing model measurement, and should pay attention to the influence of tooth axis, tooth shape, and arrangement on the measurement results.

Reliability of Tooth Width Measurements Delivered by the Clin-Check Pro 6.0 Software on Digital Casts: A Cross-Sectional Study

The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy and reliability of tooth width measurements and Bolton Indices delivered by the Clin-Check Pro 6.0 software (Align Technology, San José, CA, USA). Fifty-four plaster casts were selected and measured with a manual calliper by a trained and calibrated observer. The data gathered were compared with those delivered by the software on the corresponding fifty-four virtual casts. The method reliability of the software was assessed by comparing the measurements performed by the software on 201 pairs of clin-checks corresponding to two consecutive treatment phases. Accuracy and reliability were statistically assessed using a mixed model. The software tends to provide larger widths compared with the manual method. Statistically significant differences were found in 23 teeth. At a global level, the mean difference between the methods was −0.19 mm, with a Dahlberg error of 0.24 mm and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.98. The Bolton Indices delivered by the two methods had a moderate correlation (ICC = 0.59; 0.69). The within method reliability of the software was extremely high. Tooth width measurements delivered by the software, despite the positive bias, can be considered accurate and clinically acceptable for all teeth except molars. The Bolton Indices made available by the software are not accurate and clinically acceptable, especially in the case of mandibular excess.

Evaluation of the accuracy of orthodontic models prototyped with entry-level LCD-based 3D printers: a study using surface-based superimposition and deviation analysis

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of dental models prototyped via entry-level liquid crystal display (LCD) 3D printers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Identical prototyped models were generated from a master digital file testing two entry-level LCD-based 3D printers and using one professional-grade 3D printer as gold standard (GS), with 50-µm and 100-µm layer thickness. Each 3D-printed model was scanned, and a specific 3D technology was used to perform surface-based superimposition and deviation analysis to evaluate trueness and precision. The distances between surface points of two superimposed models were converted to root mean square (RMS) and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

The RMS values detected were significantly higher in dental models prototyped with entry-level compared to the SLA printer (p < 0.001), in terms of trueness (50 µm: GS 0.075 mm, LCD1 0.192 mm, LCD2 0.179 mm; 100 µm: GS 0.066 mm, LCD1 0.209 mm, LCD2 0.199 mm) and precision (50 µm: GS 0.028 mm, LCD1 0.075 mm, LCD2 0.085 mm; 100 µm: GS 0.039 mm, LCD1 0.096 mm, LCD2 0.101 mm). No significant differences were found between the values of RMS of both entry-level 3D printers (p > 0.05). Layer thickness did not affect either the trueness or precision of the 3D-printed models (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Entry-level LCD-based 3D printers are not as accurate as professional-grade 3D printer, but still close to orthodontics clinical threshold values.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Clinicians should evaluate the intended application of 3D-printed orthodontic models before using entry-level 3D printers.

Evaluation of current additive manufacturing systems for orthodontic 3-dimensional printing

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this research was to evaluate and compare linear and surface accuracy of dental models fabricated using 3 different vat photopolymerization printing units: digital light synthesis (M2 Printer; Carbon, Redwood City, Calif), digital light processing (Juell 3D Flash OC; Park Dental Research, New York, NY), and stereolithography apparatus (Form 2; Formlabs Inc, Somerville, Mass), and a material jetting printing unit: PolyJet (Objet Eden 260VS; Stratasys, Eden Prairie, Minn).

METHODS

Maxillary and mandibular dental arches of 20 patients with the American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index scores ranging between 10 and 30 were scanned using an intraoral scanner. Stereolithographic files of each patient were printed via the 3-dimensional (3D) printers and were digitized again using a 3D desktop scanner to enable comparisons with the original scan data. One-sample t test and linear regression analyses were performed. To further graphically examine the accuracy between the different methods, Bland-Altman plots were computed. The level of significance was set at P <0.05.

RESULTS

Bland-Altman analysis showed no fixed bias of one approach vs the other, and random errors were detected in all linear accuracy comparisons. When a 0.25 mm tolerance level was deemed acceptable for any positive or negative surface changes, only the models manufactured from digital light processing and PolyJet units showed more than 97% match with the original scans.

CONCLUSION

The surface area of 3D printed models did not yield an utterly identical match to the original scan data and was affected by the type of printer. The clinical relevance of the differences observed on the 3D printed dental model surfaces requires application-specific judgments.

Reliability and accuracy of automatic segmentation of mandibular 3D models on linear measurements

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate if automatic segmentation of mandibular three-dimensional (3D) models is reliable and accurate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight dry mandibles with eight silica markers were scanned in the i-CAT Classic device (Imaging Sciences International). Automatic segmentation was performed using nine standard preset thresholds in the Dolphin software (Dolphin Imaging & Management Solutions). Three observers individually made twice eight linear measurements on the mandibular 3D models. Another observer made physical measurements, twice as well, on the dry mandibles. Reliability and accuracy were evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Dahlberg's formula, Bland-Altman analyses, and changing bias with regression analyses.

RESULTS

Inter-observer and intra-observer ICCs and Dahlberg's error were ≥ 0.75 and ≤ 1.0 mm, respectively, for all measurements. Inter-observer agreement between mandibular 3D models and physical measurements ranged from -0.37 to 0.91 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Linear measurements made on mandibular 3D models obtained using standard preset thresholds are reliable and accurate. However, additional studies are necessary to confirm this hypothesis for clinical applications.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Since the 3D models are useful for diagnostics and surgical planning, it is necessary to determinate whether the linear measurements made on 3D models obtained by automatic segmentation are sufficiently reliable and accurate.

Accuracy of 3D Printed Implant Casts Versus Stone Casts: A Comparative Study in the Anterior Maxilla

PURPOSE

To conduct an in vitro comparison of the amount of three-dimensional (3D) deviation of 3D printed casts generated from digital implant impressions with an intraoral scanner (IOS) to stone casts made of conventional impressions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A maxillary master cast with partially edentulous anterior area was fabricated with two internal connection implants (Regular CrossFit, Straumann). Stone casts (n = 10) that served as a control were fabricated with the splinted open-tray impression technique. Twenty digital impressions were made using a white light IOS (TRIOS, 3shape) and the Standard Tesselation Language (STL) files obtained were saved. Based on the STL files, a digital light processing (DLP) and a stereolithographic (SLA) 3D printer (Varseo S and Form 2) were used to print casts (n = 10 from each 3D printer). The master cast and all casts generated from each group were digitized using the same IOS. The STL files obtained were superimposed on the master cast STL file (reference) to evaluate the amount of 3D deviation with inspection software using the root mean square value (RMS). The independent-samples Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn's test with Bonferroni correction (for post hoc comparisons) were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

The Varseo S group had the lowest median RMS value [77.5 µm (IQR = 91.4-135.4)], followed closely by the Conventional group [77.7 µm (IQR = 61.5-93.4)]. The Form 2 had the highest mean value [98.8 µm (IQR = 57.6-87.9)]. The independent-samples Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a significant difference between the groups (p = 0.018). Post hoc testing revealed a significant difference between Varseo S and Form 2 (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

The casts generated from the Varseo S 3D printer had better 3D accuracy than did those from the Form 2 3D printer. Both the Varseo S group and the conventional stone casts groups had similar 3D accuracy.

Accuracy of 3D printed polymers intended for models and surgical guides printed with two different 3D printers

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the accuracy: trueness and precision of photopolymers used for dental models and surgical guides printed with two different digital light processing (DLP) printers. Forty specimens of four materials; E-dentstone^®, E-shell^®, NextDent™ Model, NextDent™ SG, and two designs; models A and B (n=5), were manufactured (DDDP, EvoDent). Trueness was evaluated by comparing values for 26 parameters with the CAD models' reference values and precision through standard deviation. The trueness and precision were higher for linear than for angle parameters. X- and Y-axes showed higher trueness than Z-axis and model B higher trueness than model A. The conclusions are; the accuracy is dependent on the design of the object. The linear precision appears to be high. The highest trueness was observed for a surgical guide polymer (NextDent™ SG). The definition of clinically relevant accuracy and acceptable production tolerance should be evaluated in future studies.

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

OBJECTIVE

To compare the measured values obtained from the plaster model, digital models created by scanning the plaster models and direct intraoral scanning with the values obtained from direct intraoral measurements.

DESIGN

This was a prospective clinical study.

SETTING

The study was conducted in Department of Orthodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Tamil Nadu, India.

PARTICIPANTS

Ten patients before the start of orthodontic treatment were selected for the study.

METHODS

A computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD-CAM) system is an advanced technology that is being adopted in the field of orthodontics for diagnosis, treatment planning and documentation of patient records. Mesiodistal tooth width measurements of first premolars, canines, lateral incisors and central incisors, and transverse width measurement from mesial pit of right first premolar to mesial pit of left first premolar in both maxilla and mandible were obtained from direct intraoral measurement (gold standard), study model obtained from alginate impression, intraoral scanned image, and desktop scanned image of the study model. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA was performed to find the difference in mean among the groups.

RESULTS

A P value > 0.05 was obtained in ANOVA indicating that there is no statistically significant difference in the measurements obtained by either of the methods.

CONCLUSION

Conventional stone models and digital models obtained from intraoral scan and desktop scanning of plaster models are clinically reliable as the variations in measurements obtained from these methods were clinically negligible.