Thorsten Grünheid1, Nishant Patel2, Nanci L De Felippe3, Andrew Wey4, Philippe R Gaillard5, Brent E Larson6. 1. Assistant professor, Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. Electronic address: tgruenhe@umn.edu. 2. Private practice, Bolingbrook, Ill. 3. Clinical associate professor, Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. 4. Research assistant, Biostatistical Design and Analysis Center, Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. 5. Research associate, Biostatistical Design and Analysis Center, Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. 6. Associate professor and director, Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Historically, orthodontists have taken dental measurements on plaster models. Technological advances now allow orthodontists to take these measurements on digital models. In this study, we aimed to assess the accuracy, reproducibility, and time efficiency of dental measurements taken on 3 types of digital models. METHODS: emodels (GeoDigm, Falcon Heights, Minn), SureSmile models (OraMetrix, Richardson, Tex), and AnatoModels (Anatomage, San Jose, Calif) were made for 30 patients. Mesiodistal tooth-width measurements taken on these digital models were timed and compared with those on the corresponding plaster models, which were used as the gold standard. Accuracy and reproducibility were assessed using the Bland-Altman method. Differences in time efficiency were tested for statistical significance with 1-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: Measurements on SureSmile models were the most accurate, followed by those on emodels and AnatoModels. Measurements taken on SureSmile models were also the most reproducible. Measurements taken on SureSmile models and emodels were significantly faster than those taken on AnatoModels and plaster models. CONCLUSIONS: Tooth-width measurements on digital models can be as accurate as, and might be more reproducible and significantly faster than, those taken on plaster models. Of the models studied, the SureSmile models provided the best combination of accuracy, reproducibility, and time efficiency of measurement.
INTRODUCTION: Historically, orthodontists have taken dental measurements on plaster models. Technological advances now allow orthodontists to take these measurements on digital models. In this study, we aimed to assess the accuracy, reproducibility, and time efficiency of dental measurements taken on 3 types of digital models. METHODS: emodels (GeoDigm, Falcon Heights, Minn), SureSmile models (OraMetrix, Richardson, Tex), and AnatoModels (Anatomage, San Jose, Calif) were made for 30 patients. Mesiodistal tooth-width measurements taken on these digital models were timed and compared with those on the corresponding plaster models, which were used as the gold standard. Accuracy and reproducibility were assessed using the Bland-Altman method. Differences in time efficiency were tested for statistical significance with 1-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: Measurements on SureSmile models were the most accurate, followed by those on emodels and AnatoModels. Measurements taken on SureSmile models were also the most reproducible. Measurements taken on SureSmile models and emodels were significantly faster than those taken on AnatoModels and plaster models. CONCLUSIONS: Tooth-width measurements on digital models can be as accurate as, and might be more reproducible and significantly faster than, those taken on plaster models. Of the models studied, the SureSmile models provided the best combination of accuracy, reproducibility, and time efficiency of measurement.
Authors: Daniela Garib; Felicia Miranda; Juan Martin Palomo; Fernando Pugliese; José Carlos da Cunha Bastos; Alexandre Magno Dos Santos; Guilherme Janson Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Leonardo Tavares Camardella; Oswaldo V Vilella; Marleen M van Hezel; Karel H Breuning Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 1.938
Authors: Jamille B Ferreira; Ilana O Christovam; David S Alencar; Andréa F J da Motta; Claudia T Mattos; Adriana Cury-Saramago Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Leonardo T Camardella; Edwin M Ongkosuwito; E Willemijn Penning; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman; Oswaldo V Vilella; K Hero Breuning Journal: Korean J Orthod Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 1.372