An image analysis system for the determination of tooth dimensions from study casts: comparison with manual measurements of mesio-distal diameter

Impact of Orthodontic Brackets on the Intraoral Scan Data Accuracy

This study aims to compare the impact of buccal and lingual brackets on the accuracy of dental arch data acquired by 4 different digital intraoral scanners. Two pairs of dental casts, one with buccal brackets and the other with lingual brackets, were used. Digital measurements of the 3D images were compared to the actual measurements of the dental models, which were considered standard values. The horizontal measurements included intercanine widths and intermolar widths. The Mann-Whitney U test was performed for comparisons. iTero® and Trios® both showed high accuracy with relatively small maximum deviation of measurements. iTero showed a significantly higher accuracy in most of the arch width measurements on the buccal bracket model than on the lingual model (P < 0.05). Zfx IntraScan® and E4D Dentist® produced maximum deviations of more than 2 mm from both the buccal and the lingual bracket models. After comparing the degree of distortion of the arch on the digital scans with actual measurements of the same models, iTero and Trios proved to be excellent in terms of trueness and precision. Nevertheless, digital intraoral scanners should be used more cautiously in arches with lingual brackets than in those with buccal brackets.

Phenotype-genotype correlations in mouse models of amelogenesis imperfecta caused by Amelx and Enam mutations

Mutations in human and in mouse orthologous genes Amelx and Enam result in a diverse range of enamel defects. In this study we aimed to investigate the phenotype-genotype correlation between the mutants and the wild-type controls in mouse models of amelogenesis imperfecta using novel measurement approaches. Ten hemi-mandibles and incisors were dissected from each group of Amelx(WT), Amelx(X/Y64H), Amelx(Y/Y64H), Amelx(Y64H/Y64H), and Enam(WT), Enam(Rgsc395) heterozygous and Enam(Rgsc395) homozygous mice. Their macro-morphology, colour and micro-topography were assessed using bespoke 2D and 3D image analysis systems and customized colour and whiteness algorithms. The novel methods identified significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) between the Amelx groups for mandible and incisor size and enamel colour and between the Enam groups for incisor size and enamel colour. The Amelx(WT) mice had the largest mandibles and incisors, followed in descending order of size by the Amelx(X/Y64H), Amelx(Y/Y64H) and Amelx(Y64H/Y64H) mice. Within the Enam groups the Enam(WT) incisors were largest and the Enam(Rgsc395) heterozygous mice were smallest. The effect on tooth morphology was also reflected by the severity of the enamel defects in the colour and whiteness assessment. Amelogenin affected mandible morphology and incisor enamel formation, while enamelin only affected incisors, supporting the multifunctional role of amelogenin. The enamelin mutation was associated with earlier forming enamel defects. The study supported the critical involvement of amelogenin and enamelin in enamel mineralization.

Maxillary Anterior Tooth Size and Arch Dimensions in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

Objective:

To investigate differences in size of the maxillary permanent anterior teeth and arch dimensions between individuals with repaired unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and a matched control group representing the general population.

Design:

Retrospective study cast review.

Participants:

Study casts of 30 subjects due to commence orthodontic treatment following an alveolar bone graft (ABG) were collected from the Cleft Lip and Palate Units in South Yorkshire. Thirty control subjects were collected from a previously validated control group of white individuals in South Yorkshire.

Main Outcome Measures:

Casts were analyzed with an image analysis system to measure the dimensions of the maxillary permanent anterior teeth, incisor chord lengths, and the intercanine and intermolar widths. The results were analyzed statistically using paired t-tests and two-way univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Results:

The mesiodistal widths of maxillary anterior teeth in the study group were smaller than the noncleft control group (p < .01). The dimensions of the cleft side maxillary incisors and incisor chord length were smaller (p < .05 and p < .01 respectively) compared with the noncleft side. The study group maxillary cleft side incisor chord length and maxillary intercanine width were narrower than the control group (p < .0001).

Conclusions:

(1) Anterior teeth are smaller mesiodistally in individuals with UCLP. (2) Maxillary incisors are smaller on the cleft side than the noncleft side. (3) UCLP subjects had smaller maxillary cleft side incisor chord lengths and intercanine widths than the control group despite pre-ABG expansion.