A Comparison of Three Types of Orthodontic Study Models
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17159/sadj.v80i09.21972Keywords:
Digital study models, plaster study models, printed study modelsAbstract
Plaster study models have been the gold standard for many years but have many disadvantages. Intra-oral scanners and three-dimensional printers have provided alternatives in the form of digital and printed study models. Their accuracy for clinical use requires further validation. The aim of this research was to compare the accuracy of digital and printed study models with plaster study models.
The objectives were to compare the accuracy of measurements obtained from digital and printed study models with those of plaster study models, to establish which type of study model yielded the most accurate measurements in comparison to plaster study models and to identify disadvantages associated with the use of these types of study models. A study sample of 50 patients attending a private orthodontic practice for treatment participated. Patients’ participation was voluntary
Downloads
References
1. Bahreman A. Early-Age Orthodontic Treatment: Examination, Early Detection, and Treatment Planning. Hanover Park, IL, United States of America: Quintessence Publishing Company, Incorporated; 2013.
2. Sjögren APG, Lindgren JE, Huggare JÅ. Orthodontic Study Cast Analysis- Reproducibility of Recordings and Agreement Between Conventional and 3D Virtual Measurements. J Digital Imaging [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2017 January 13]; 23(4):482- 492. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3046658/pdf/ doi: 10278_2009_Article_9211.pdf.
3. Lemos LS, Rebello IMCR, Vogel CJ, Barbosa MC. Reliability of measurements made on scanned cast models using the 3Shape R700 scanner. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2017 Feb 1]; 44:1-7. Available from: http:// web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/detail/detail?vid =5&sid=7a51c7b5- 3a5a-419c-9a36-ba2b7d727257%40sdc-v-sessmgr01&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3 QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ddh&AN= =108530184/ doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20140337.
4. Kumar AA, Phillip A, Kumar S, Rawat A, Priya S, Kumeran V. Digital model as an alternative to plaster model in assessment of space analysis. J Pharmacy Bioallied Sciences [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2017 Jan 26];7: S465-469. Available from: http:// web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/detail/detail ?vid=8&sid=7a51c7b5- 3a5a-419c-9a36-ba2b7d727257%40sdc vsessmgr01&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3 QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=110575179&db=a9h/ doi: 10.4103/0975-7406.163506.
5. Correia GDC, Habib FAL, Vogel CJ. Tooth-size discrepancy: A comparison between manual and digital methods. Dental Press J Orthodontics [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2016 Jul 3]; 19(4): 107-113. 10.1007/s00056-015-0004-2.
8. De Luca Canto G, Pachêco-Pereira C, Lagravere M.O, Flores-Mir C, Major PW. Intra-arch dimensional measurement validity of laser-scanned digital dental models compared with original plaster models: a systematic review.Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2016 Jul 3]; 18:65-
76. Available from: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/detail/detail?vid=17&sid=f9baf734-e339-48cb-b58c-583c3d93c18a%40pdc-v-sessmgr06&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=cmedm&AN=25677755 doi:10.1111/ocr.12068.
9. Pachêco-Pereira C, De Luca Canto G, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Variation oforthodontic treatment decision-making based on dental model type: A systematic review. Angle Orthodontist [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2017 Feb 1]; 85(3):501-509.
Available from: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=22&sid=f9baf734-e339-48cb-b58c-583c3d93c18a%40pdc-vsessmgr06doi: 10.2319/051214-343.1.
10. Burzynski JA, Firestone AR, Beck FM, Fields HW Jr, Deguchi T. Comparison of digitalintraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction. American JOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2019 May 5]; 153(4):
534-541. Available from:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324141358_Comparison_of_digital_ intraoral_scanners_and_alginate_impressions_Time_and_patient_satisfaction/download?.
11. Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R, Zhurov AI. A comparison of plaster, digital andreconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthodontics [Internet]. 2008 [cited2017 Feb 1]; 35:191-201. Available from: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=25&sid=f9baf734-e339-48cb-b58c-583c3d93c18a%40pdc-v-sessmgr06 doi: 10.1179/146531207225022626.
12. Polido WD. Digital impressions and the handling of digital models: The future ofDentistry. Dental Press J Ortho [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2017 Jan 13], 15(5):18-22.Available from: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/dpjo/v15n5/en_03.pdf.
13. Reuschl RP, Heuer W, Stiesch M, Wenzel D, Dittmer, MP. Reliability and validity ofmeasurements on digital study models and plaster models. European J Orthodontics[Internet]. 2016 [cited 2017 Feb 1]; 38(1):22-26. Available from: http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/detail/detail?vid=14&sid=7a51c7b5-3a5a-419c-9a36-ba2b7d727257%40sdc-vsessmgr01&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=25724574&db=cmedm doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjv001
14. Martin CB, Chalmers EV, McIntyre GT, Cochrane H and Mossey PA. Orthodonticscanners: what’s available?. J Orthodontics [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2016 Jul7]; 42:136-143. Available from: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=fd825b8c-019e-4c64-a55e-5502c7af8562%40pdc-v-sessmgr05 doi: 10.1179/1465313315Y.0000000001.
15. Hazeveld A, Huddleston Slater JJR, Ren Y. Accuracy and reproducibility of dentalreplica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques. AmericanJ Orthodontics and Dental Orthopedics [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2017 May 8]; 145108:115. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24373661.
16. Kravitz ND, Groth C, Jones PE, Graham JW, Redmond WR. Intraoral Digital Scanners.J Clinical Orthodontics [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2017 Feb 25]; 48 (6):337-347. Availablefrom: http://www.kravitzorthodontics.com/assets/pdfs/Intraoral-Digital-Scanners.pdf.
17. Westerlund A, Tancredi W, Ransjö M, Bresin A, Psonis P, Torgersson O. Digital castsin orthodontics: a comparison of 4 software systems. American J Orthodontics and Dental Orthopedics [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2017 Jun 3]; 147(4):509-516. Available
18. Anh J-W, Park J-M, Chun Y-S, Kim M and Kim M. A comparison of the precisionof three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction. The Korean J Orthodontics [Internet].
2016 [cited 2016 Jul 3]; 46 (1):3-12. Available from: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/detail/detail?vid=7&sid=fd825b8c-019e-4c64-a55e-5502c7af8562%40pdc-v-sessmgr05&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%d#AN=112729653&db=ddh doi: 10.4041/kjod.2016.46.1.3.
19. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes.Clin Oral Implants Research [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2016 Feb 25]; 24:111-115.Available from: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/pdfviewer/
pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=f9baf734-e339-48cb-b58c-583c3d93c18a%40pdc-vsessmgr06doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02430.x.
20. Zhang F, Suh K-J, Lee K-M. Validity of Intraoral Scans Compared with Plaster Models:An In-Vivo Comparison of Dental Measurements and 3D Surface Analysis. PLoS ONE[Internet]. 2016 [cited 2016 Jul 7]; 11(6):1-10. Available from: http://web.b.ebscohost.
com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=8&sid=f9baf734-e339-48cb-b58c-583c3d93c18a%40pdc-v-sessmgr06 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157713.
21. Ahmad I, Al-Harbi F. 3D Printing in Dentistry 2019/2020.Surrey, UK: QuintessencePublishing Co Ltd United Kingdom.
22. Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital studymodels compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthodontics andCraniofacial Research [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2016 Jul 3]; 14:1-16. Availablefrom:http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=28&sid=f9baf734-e339-48cb-b58c-583c3d93c18a%40pdc-vsessmgr06doi: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01503.x.
23. Veenema AC, Katsaros C, Boxum SC, Bronkhorst EM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM.Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need scored on plaster and digital models.European J Orthodontics [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2017 Feb 1]; 31:281-286.
Available from: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=31&sid=f9baf734-e339-48cb-b58c-583c3d93c18a%40pdc-vsessmgr06doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjn077.
24. Wan Hassan WN, Othman SA, Chan CS, Ahmad R, Ali SN’A, Rohim, AA. Assessingagreement in measurements of orthodontic study models: Digital caliper on plastermodels vs 3-dimensional software on models scanned by structured-light laser.American J Orthodontics and Orthopedics [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2017 Jan 13];150:886-895. Available from: http://www.ajodo.org/article/S0889-5406(16)30371-7/
pdf 9.
25. Shahid F, Alam MK, Khamis MF. New prediction equations for the estimation of maxillarymandibular canine and premolar widths from mandibular incisors and mandibular first permanent molar widths: A digital model study. The Korean J Orthodontics [Internet].
2016 [cited 2016 Jul 3]; 46(3):171-179. Available from: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=34&sid=f9baf734-e339-48cbb58c-583c3d93c18a%40pdc-v-sessmgr06 doi: 10.4041/kjod.2016.46.3.171.
26. Dowling AH, Burns A, Macauley D, Garvey TM, Fleming GJP. Can the intraexaminervariability of Little’s Irregularity Index be improved using 3D digital modelsof study casts?. J Dentistry [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2016 Jul 7]; 41:1271-1280.
Available from: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=37&sid=f9baf734-e339-48cb-b58c-583c3d93c18a%40pdc-vsessmgr06doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.08.020.
27. Asquith JA, McIntyre GT. Dental Arch Relationships on Three-Dimensional DigitalStudy Models and Conventional Plaster Study Models for Patients with Unilateral CleftLip and Palate. The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2017 Jan 13];49(5):530-534. Available from: <http://www.cpcjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1597/10-099.
28. Saleh WK, Ariffin E, Sherriff M, Bister D. Accuracy and reproducibility oflinear measurements of resin, plaster, digital and printed study-models. JOrthodontics [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2016 Jul 3];42(4): 301-306. Availablefrom:http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=40&sid=f9baf734-e339-48cb-b58c-583c3d93c18a%40pdc-vsessmgr06doi: 10.1179/1465313315Y.0000000016.
29. Dawood A, Marti B, Sauret-Jackson V, Darwood A. 3D printing in dentistry. BritishDent J [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2016 Aug 9]; 219(11)521-529. Available from: https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/286612886_3D_printing_in_dentistry.
30. Lee K-Y, Cho J-W, Chang N-Y, Chae J-M, Kang K-H, Kim S-C, Cho, J-H.Accuracy of three-dimensional printing of manufacturing replica teeth. KoreanJ Orthodontics [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2016 Jul 3]; 45(5):217-225. Availablefrom:http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=43&sid=f9baf734-e339-48cb-b58c-583c3d93c18a%40pdc-vsessmgr06doi: 10.4041/kjod.2015.45.5.217.
31. Dalstra M, Melsen, B. From alginate impressions to digital virtual models: accuracyand reproducibility. J Orthodontics [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2017 Feb 1]; 36:36-41.Available from: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/pdfviewer/
pdfviewer?vid=46&sid=f9baf734-e339-48cb-b58c-583c3d93c18a%40pdc-vsessmgr06doi: 10.1179/14653120722905.
32. Nayar S, Bhuminathan S, Baht WM. Rapid prototyping and stereolithographyin dentistry. J Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences [Internet] 2015 [cited 2017 Feb
]; 7: S216-S219. Available from: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=49&sid=f9baf734-e339-48cb-b58c-583c3d93c18a%40pdc-v-sessmgr06 doi:10.4103/0975-7406.155913.
33. Torabi K, Farjood E, Hamedani S. Rapid Prototyping Technologies and theirApplications in Prosthodontics, a Review of Literature. J Dentistry, Shiraz University ofMedical Sciences [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2017 Feb 1]; 16(1):1-9. Available from: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/detail/detail?vid=51&sid=f9baf734-e339-48cb-b58c-583c3d93c18a%40pdc-v-sessmgr06&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=25759851&db=cmedm.
34. Zilberman O, Huggare JÅV, Parikakis KA. Evaluation of the Validity of Tooth Sizeand Arch Width Measurements Using Conventional and Three-dimensional Virtual Orthodontic Models. Angle Orthodontist [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2017 Jan 13];73(3):301-306, Available from: http://www.angle.org / doi: pdf/10.1043/0003-.
35. Jiang T, Lee S-M, Hou Y, Chang X, Hwang H-S. Evaluation of digital dental modelsobtained from dental cone-beam computed tomography scan of alginate impressions.Korean J Orthodontics [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2017 Feb 1]; 46(3):129-136.
Available from: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwc.ac.za/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=54&sid=f9baf734-e339-48cb-b58c-583c3d93c18a%40pdc-vsessmgr06
doi: 10.4041/kjod.2016.46.3.129.
36. Bell A, Ayoub AF, Siebert P. Assessment of the accuracy of a three-dimensionalimaging system for archiving dental study models. The J Orthodontics [Internet].2003 [cited 2019 Aug 25]; 30:219-223. Available from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.
org/8184/a400d32d4859596a9ee438dfcca9fe5cae13.pd.
37. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.Biometrics. 1977 [cited 2020 Sep 17];3(1):159-174.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
.png){kind=spacer}