Next Article in Journal
Impact of Acid Rain with Different pH Values in Monstera deliciosa Plants
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Irrigation with Sodium Hypochlorite on the Bond Strength to Dentin Using Different Bonding Protocols
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Proceeding Paper

Precision of Tooth Size Measurement in Digital Models Acquired by Intraoral Scanning and by Scanning of Plaster Models Versus Conventionally Cast Models †

by
Matilde Jardim
1,
Pedro Mariano Pereira
1,2,*,
Luís Proença
2,3 and
Iman Bugaighis
1,*
1
Department of Orthodontics, Egas Moniz School of Health and Science, Caparica, 2829-511 Almada, Portugal
2
Egas Moniz Center for Interdisciplinary Research (CiiEM), Egas Moniz School of Health and Science, Caparica, 2829-511 Almada, Portugal
3
Quantitative Methods for Health Research Unit, Egas Moniz School of Health and Science, Caparica, 2829-511 Almada, Portugal
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Presented at the 6th International Congress of CiiEM—Immediate and Future Challenges to Foster One Health, Almada, Portugal, 5–7 July 2023.
Med. Sci. Forum 2023, 22(1), 20; https://doi.org/10.3390/msf2023022020
Published: 11 August 2023

Abstract

:
This study compared the precision of extracting mesio-distal tooth size of each participant, from plaster models, digital models, and by scanning plaster models using the iTero Element 5D Plus scanner. Ten participants were included in the study. Descriptive analysis was carried out and the reproducibility of measurements for the three methods was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The overall reproducibility of mesio-distal tooth size measurements on digital models was comparable to direct measurements on plaster models and the digital replicate of the study models. A trend towards lower reproducibility was found for measurements of posterior maxillary teeth in digital models.

1. Introduction

Traditionally, diagnostic measurements were obtained from plaster models with a digital calliper. The literature recognizes manual measurements using callipers as accurate and reliable [1,2,3]. In recent years, conventional plaster models have been replaced by digital models that are becoming more common due to the benefits related with storage, retrieval, reproduction, and communication. On that account, the clinician can have easy access to diagnostic and routine measurements and perform various analyses [4].
Different methods can obtain digital models. Several studies have evaluated the reliability of 3D digital models, obtained with extra-oral scanners on plaster models such as 3Shape D250 3-dimensional (3D) scanner (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) [3,5], Ortho Insight 3D laser scanner (Motion View LLC, Chatanooga, TN, USA) [6], and R500 3Shape scanner (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) [7]. Scans with the 3Shape D250 showed high precision values with mean deviations of 10 μm and, root mean square errors of 20 μm [5].
Three dimensional (3D) digital models can also be acquired with intraoral scanners. Pelliteri et al. [7] studied the accuracy and efficiency of 3D digital models using three different intraoral scanners, Carestream CS3600 (Onex Corporation, Rochester, NY, USA), CEREC Omnicam(Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) and Trios 3Shape (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Variations between the three intraoral scanners and the polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression scan ranged from 100 to 200 μm.
Intraoral scanners, such as iTero, can also be used to scan plaster models. Reported values of mean deviations of 25 μm and root mean square errors of 51 μm [5] confirm that the iTero intraoral scan can generate 3D digital models of plaster models with precision.
The availability of several software applications enables clinicians to import digital models and move their generated images around three axes of rotation as well as measuring tooth size and arch width and length [4] and calculate Bolton ratios [6], such as OrthoCAD (Cadent, Carlstadt, NJ, USA), E-models (GeoDigm Corporation, Falcon Heights, MN, USA), Ortho AnalyzerTM (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), SureSmile (OraMetrix, Richardson, TX, USA), Maestro3D (AGE Solutions, Pisa, Italy), NemoCast (Nemotec, Madrid, Spain), and DigiModel (OrthoProof, Nieuwegein, Netherlands) [4,6,8,9].
Most studies found that even though the reproducibility of digital models is acceptable for clinical diagnosis and investigation measurement, precision varies across studies according to the clinician’s experience and ability and the visualization tools offered by different software. Therefore, the precision and accuracy of different measurements and techniques should be evaluated in the practice of evidence-based clinical orthodontics [2].
The aim of this study was to determine and compare the precision of mesio-distal tooth size measurements in plaster models using a digital calliper with measurements obtained with NemoCast software in digital models acquired through intraoral scanning and by scanning plaster models using the iTero Element 5D Plus scanner.

2. Materials and Methods

The present pilot study was undertaken at the Egas Moniz School of Health and Science. Ethical approval was secured from the Ethics Committee, and consent forms were obtained from the participants. The study sample consisted of 10 patients with full permanent dentition randomly selected from the clinical archives of the postgraduate orthodontics program. Each case had available dental study models and intraoral digital scans. Digital models were acquired both through intraoral scanning and by scanning the plaster models using the iTero Element 5D Plus scanner (Align Technology, San Jose, CA, USA) (Figure 1).
The iTero Element 5D Plus acquisition method is based on parallel confocal microscopic features colour scanning and does not require opacification. The scanning procedure started from the occlusal surface, progressing to the buccal and lingual surfaces. A sample size calculation determined that a 10 to 13 dental study models are required to obtain a statistical power of 95% [4].
One examiner (M.J.) was trained in using the three different methods, measuring with a digital calliper, scanning the plaster models and measuring of the 3D virtual images with NemoCast software v2021. The measurements from conventional dental casts were obtained with a 145 mm digital calliper (Hammacher, Solingen, Germany) with 0.01 mm accuracy. Digital model images were analyzed by using Nemocast software (Figure 2). Measurements were recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft, Redmond, DC, USA) and analyzed with SPSS Statistics version 28.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). Descriptive analysis of the mean error of mesio-distal tooth size duplicate measurements was carried out and the reproducibility of measurements assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

3. Results

The intra-examiner mean random errors of mesio-distal tooth size ranged from 0.07 to 0.20 mm for measurements obtained with a digital calliper on plaster models, from 0.07 to 0.29 mm for measurements obtained with Nemocast in digital models acquired through iTero intraoral scanning, and from 0.07 to 0.28 mm for measurements obtained with Nemocast in digital models acquired using iTero scanning of plaster models.
Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for mesio-distal tooth size measurements (Table 1) ranged from 0.630 to 0.990 for the digital calliper (mean ICC = 0.921), from 0.524 to 0.965 for Nemocast/iTero intraoral scanning (mean ICC = 0.885), and from 0.281 to 0.971 for Nemocast/iTero plaster scanning (mean ICC = 0.855).

4. Discussion

The reproducibility of mesiodistal tooth measurements can be affected by numerous variables, including inclination, rotation, interproximal contacts, and anatomical differences. In this study, repeated measurements had acceptable correlations and mean errors were determined to be within clinically acceptable limits for all methods.
Even though the iTero intraoral scan is not optimized for plaster model scanning, results were comparable to iTero intraoral scan in vivo. Difficulty in capturing the morphology of a study model seem to be related to the presence of undercut areas. This problem can be solved by positioning the cast model from several different angles, rather than relocating the scanner while capturing scanned images of the occlusal, buccal, and lingual surface, allowing the production of a 360° model with greater accuracy [10].
In this study, the largest errors tended to be found in maxillary arch scans. This finding is in agreement with a previous study in which full arch scans showed a greater mean error in maxillary scans compared to mandibular scans [11]. The lower reproducibility that was observed in this study in the measurement of some posterior teeth has been previously attributed to errors in scanning [11]. Images acquired by several scanners showed distortion patterns, which can compromise the accuracy of linear measurements, with a tendency for greater deviation in the molar area [7]. The 3D and 2D error analyses also displayed a trend of greater distortion of digital scans compared to conventional measurements in the molar region [7].

5. Conclusions

(1) The overall reproducibility of mesiodistal tooth size measurements on digital models was comparable to direct measurements with a calliper on plaster models. (2) Similar reproducibility was found for measurements performed on digital models acquired by scanning plaster models and by intraoral scanning. (3) A trend towards lower reproducibility was found for measurements of posterior maxillary teeth in digital models.

Author Contributions

M.J. is the principal investigator, collecting study data, taking direct measurements, using the software, validating the measurements, collecting references, and writing the proceeding draft. P.M.P.: conceptualization, supervision, co-editing and co-writing up, and revising the final draft of the Proceeding. L.P.: undertaking the statistical analysis. I.B.: second supervisor, co-editing and co-writing up the proceeding. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Ethic Committee of the Egas Moniz School of Health and Science.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Quimby, M.L.; Vig, K.W.; Rashid, R.G.; Firestone, A.R. The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. Angle Orthod. 2004, 74, 298–303. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Leifert, M.F.; Leifert, M.M.; Efstratiadis, S.S.; Cangialosi, T.J. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2009, 136, e1–e4; discussion 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Naidu, D.; Scott, J.; Ong, D.; Ho, C.T. Validity, reliability and reproducibility of three methods used to measure tooth widths for bolton analyses. Aust. Orthod. J. 2009, 25, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Sousa, M.V.; Vasconcelos, E.C.; Janson, G.; Garib, D.; Pinzan, A. Accuracy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measurements. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2012, 142, 269–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Flügge, T.V.; Schlager, S.; Nelson, K.; Nahles, S.; Metzger, M.C. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2013, 144, 471–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Kim, J.; Lagravére, M.O. Accuracy of Bolton analysis measured in laser scanned digital models compared with plaster models (gold standard) and cone-beam computer tomography images. Korean J. Orthod. 2016, 46, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Pellitteri, F.; Albertini, P.; Vogrig, A.; Spedicato, G.A.; Siciliani, G.; Lombardo, L. Comparative analysis of intraoral scanners accuracy using 3D software: An in vivo study. Prog. Orthod. 2022, 23, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Naidu, D.; Freer, T.J. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: A comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2013, 144, 304–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Camardella, L.T.; Ongkosuwito, E.M.; Penning, E.W.; Kuijpers-Jagtman, A.M.; Vilella, O.V.; Breuning, K.H. Accuracy and reliability of measurements performed using two different software programs on digital models generated using laser and computed tomography plaster model scanners. Korean J. Orthod. 2020, 50, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hajeer, M.Y.; Millett, D.T.; Ayoub, A.F.; Siebert, J.P. Applications of 3D imaging in orthodontics: Part I. J. Orthod. 2004, 31, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Moon, Y.G.; Lee, K.M. Comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scans between complete-arch scan and quadrant scan. Prog. Orthod. 2020, 21, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Dental models used in the study. Left to right: Conventional plaster study model, 3D scanning of plaster model, 3D intraoral scan.
Figure 1. Dental models used in the study. Left to right: Conventional plaster study model, 3D scanning of plaster model, 3D intraoral scan.
Msf 22 00020 g001
Figure 2. Mesiodistal tooth measurements from the Nemocast software. Mesial point landmarks are marked as a red circle and distal point landmarks as a blue circle.
Figure 2. Mesiodistal tooth measurements from the Nemocast software. Mesial point landmarks are marked as a red circle and distal point landmarks as a blue circle.
Msf 22 00020 g002
Table 1. Reproducibility of tooth size measurements evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient.
Table 1. Reproducibility of tooth size measurements evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient.
Digital Calliper/Plaster ModelNemocast/Intraoral ScanNemocast/Plaster ScanMean
Upper Arch
160.9080.6930.6850.762
150.9720.9350.9090.939
140.9510.9150.8040.890
130.6300.9430.8400.804
120.9310.9300.9620.941
110.9900.9440.9350.956
210.9690.9650.9710.968
220.9740.8640.9570.932
230.9270.9000.4900.772
240.9610.9410.9420.948
250.9330.8530.6480.811
260.8470.6650.2810.598
Lower Arch
360.9890.9470.9140.950
350.9790.9120.8350.909
340.8900.9150.9610.922
330.9040.8670.9020.891
320.8950.9650.9610.940
310.9050.5240.8610.763
410.9190.9370.9680.941
420.8780.9320.9650.925
430.9150.9520.9000.922
440.9320.9210.9150.923
450.9670.9270.9550.950
460.9310.8880.9490.923
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jardim, M.; Mariano Pereira, P.; Proença, L.; Bugaighis, I. Precision of Tooth Size Measurement in Digital Models Acquired by Intraoral Scanning and by Scanning of Plaster Models Versus Conventionally Cast Models. Med. Sci. Forum 2023, 22, 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/msf2023022020

AMA Style

Jardim M, Mariano Pereira P, Proença L, Bugaighis I. Precision of Tooth Size Measurement in Digital Models Acquired by Intraoral Scanning and by Scanning of Plaster Models Versus Conventionally Cast Models. Medical Sciences Forum. 2023; 22(1):20. https://doi.org/10.3390/msf2023022020

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jardim, Matilde, Pedro Mariano Pereira, Luís Proença, and Iman Bugaighis. 2023. "Precision of Tooth Size Measurement in Digital Models Acquired by Intraoral Scanning and by Scanning of Plaster Models Versus Conventionally Cast Models" Medical Sciences Forum 22, no. 1: 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/msf2023022020

APA Style

Jardim, M., Mariano Pereira, P., Proença, L., & Bugaighis, I. (2023). Precision of Tooth Size Measurement in Digital Models Acquired by Intraoral Scanning and by Scanning of Plaster Models Versus Conventionally Cast Models. Medical Sciences Forum, 22(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/msf2023022020

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop