Leonardo T Camardella1, Oswaldo V Vilella2, K Hero Breuning3, Felipe de Assis Ribeiro Carvalho4, Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman5,6,7, Edwin M Ongkosuwito8. 1. Dental School, Department of Orthodontics, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF), Mário Santos Braga Street, 30, 2nd Floor, Room 214, 24020-140, Niteroi, RJ, Brazil. leocamardella@globo.com. 2. Dental School, Department of Orthodontics, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF), Mário Santos Braga Street, 30, 2nd Floor, Room 214, 24020-140, Niteroi, RJ, Brazil. 3. , Maurik, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Orthodontics, University of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Boulevard 28 de Setembro, 157, 2nd Floor, Room 10, 20551-030, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. 5. Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Centre Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 7. Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia. 8. Department of Dentistry-Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology, 309 Dentistry, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different superimposition methods on the accuracy and predictability of conventional and virtual diagnostic setups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten finished cases were used to make a conventional setup and a virtual setup. Second molars were not moved in the two setup situations to allow a reference for superimposition. Conventional and virtual setups were superimposed and compared by second molar registration and the whole surface best fit method (WSBF). Conventional and virtual setups were compared to the posttreatment models with WSBF and palatal rugae best fit (PRBF). Anterior, intermediate, and posterior regions of the dental arches were compared. The paired t-test was used to compare the mean differences between conventional and virtual setups, posttreatment models and both conventional and virtual setups by the WSBF method, and between maxillary posttreatment and virtual setup models using the WSBF and PRBF methods. RESULTS: Conventional and virtual setups differed depending on the two superimposition methods used. Superimposition of the posttreatment models and both setups using WSBF presented no statistically significant differences. There were statistically significant differences between posttreatment and virtual setup models using WSBF and PRBF superimposition methods. CONCLUSIONS: The model superimposition method influenced the assessment of accuracy and predictability of setup models. There were statistically significant differences between the maxillary posttreatment and virtual setup models using the WSBF and the PRBF superimposition methods. It is important to establish stable structures to evaluate the accuracy and predictability of setup models.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different superimposition methods on the accuracy and predictability of conventional and virtual diagnostic setups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten finished cases were used to make a conventional setup and a virtual setup. Second molars were not moved in the two setup situations to allow a reference for superimposition. Conventional and virtual setups were superimposed and compared by second molar registration and the whole surface best fit method (WSBF). Conventional and virtual setups were compared to the posttreatment models with WSBF and palatal rugae best fit (PRBF). Anterior, intermediate, and posterior regions of the dental arches were compared. The paired t-test was used to compare the mean differences between conventional and virtual setups, posttreatment models and both conventional and virtual setups by the WSBF method, and between maxillary posttreatment and virtual setup models using the WSBF and PRBF methods. RESULTS: Conventional and virtual setups differed depending on the two superimposition methods used. Superimposition of the posttreatment models and both setups using WSBF presented no statistically significant differences. There were statistically significant differences between posttreatment and virtual setup models using WSBF and PRBF superimposition methods. CONCLUSIONS: The model superimposition method influenced the assessment of accuracy and predictability of setup models. There were statistically significant differences between the maxillary posttreatment and virtual setup models using the WSBF and the PRBF superimposition methods. It is important to establish stable structures to evaluate the accuracy and predictability of setup models.
Keywords:
3D scanner; Digital models; Digital simulation; Orthodontics, corrective; Three-dimensional diagnosis and treatment planning
Authors: Dong-Soon Choi; Young-Mok Jeong; Insan Jang; Paul George Jost-Brinkmann; Bong-Kuen Cha Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.079