Olivier de Waard1, Frits Andreas Rangel2, Piotr Stanislaw Fudalej3, Ewald Maria Bronkhorst4, Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman5, Karel Hero Breuning6. 1. Postgraduate student, Department of Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: orthodontics@dent.umcn.nl. 2. Junior researcher, Department of Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Senior lecturer, Department of Orthodontics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; associate professor, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic. 4. Statistician/methodologist, Department of Preventive and Curative Dentistry, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 5. Professor and chair, Department of Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 6. Assistant professor, Department of Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine the reproducibility and accuracy of linear measurements on 2 types of dental models derived from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans: CBCT images, and Anatomodels (InVivoDental, San Jose, Calif); these were compared with digital models generated from dental impressions (Digimodels; Orthoproof, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands). The Digimodels were used as the reference standard. METHODS: The 3 types of digital models were made from 10 subjects. Four examiners repeated 37 linear tooth and arch measurements 10 times. Paired t tests and the intraclass correlation coefficient were performed to determine the reproducibility and accuracy of the measurements. RESULTS: The CBCT images showed significantly smaller intraclass correlation coefficient values and larger duplicate measurement errors compared with the corresponding values for Digimodels and Anatomodels. The average difference between measurements on CBCT images and Digimodels ranged from -0.4 to 1.65 mm, with limits of agreement values up to 1.3 mm for crown-width measurements. The average difference between Anatomodels and Digimodels ranged from -0.42 to 0.84 mm with limits of agreement values up to 1.65 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant differences between measurements on Digimodels and Anatomodels, and between Digimodels and CBCT images, were found. Although the mean differences might be clinically acceptable, the random errors were relatively large compared with corresponding measurements reported in the literature for both Anatomodels and CBCT images, and might be clinically important. Therefore, with the CBCT settings used in this study, measurements made directly on CBCT images and Anatomodels are not as accurate as measurements on Digimodels.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine the reproducibility and accuracy of linear measurements on 2 types of dental models derived from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans: CBCT images, and Anatomodels (InVivoDental, San Jose, Calif); these were compared with digital models generated from dental impressions (Digimodels; Orthoproof, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands). The Digimodels were used as the reference standard. METHODS: The 3 types of digital models were made from 10 subjects. Four examiners repeated 37 linear tooth and arch measurements 10 times. Paired t tests and the intraclass correlation coefficient were performed to determine the reproducibility and accuracy of the measurements. RESULTS: The CBCT images showed significantly smaller intraclass correlation coefficient values and larger duplicate measurement errors compared with the corresponding values for Digimodels and Anatomodels. The average difference between measurements on CBCT images and Digimodels ranged from -0.4 to 1.65 mm, with limits of agreement values up to 1.3 mm for crown-width measurements. The average difference between Anatomodels and Digimodels ranged from -0.42 to 0.84 mm with limits of agreement values up to 1.65 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant differences between measurements on Digimodels and Anatomodels, and between Digimodels and CBCT images, were found. Although the mean differences might be clinically acceptable, the random errors were relatively large compared with corresponding measurements reported in the literature for both Anatomodels and CBCT images, and might be clinically important. Therefore, with the CBCT settings used in this study, measurements made directly on CBCT images and Anatomodels are not as accurate as measurements on Digimodels.
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: Hui-Rong Zhang; Le-Feng Yin; Yan-Li Liu; Li-Yi Yan; Ning Wang; Gang Liu; Xiao-Li An; Bin Liu Journal: Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi Date: 2018-04-01
Authors: Robin Bruggink; Frank Baan; Gem Kramer; Colet Claessens; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman; Ewald M Bronkhorst; Thomas J J Maal; Edwin Ongkosuwito Journal: PeerJ Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 2.984