Validity, Reliability and Reproducibility of Space Analysis using Digital Model taken via Model Scanner and Intraoral Scanner: An In vivo Study (모델 스캐너와 구내 스캐너로 획득한 디지털 모형에서 시행한 공간 분석의 타당도, 신뢰도, 재현성 평가)

Seohyun Park (박서현); Jong-Soo Kim (김종수); Sohee Oh (오소희)

doi:10.5933/JKAPD.2020.47.2.176

Validity, Reliability and Reproducibility of Space Analysis using Digital Model taken via Model Scanner and Intraoral Scanner: An In vivo Study

Journal of the Korean academy of pediatric dentistry
Abbr : J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent
2020, 47(2), pp.176-187
DOI : 10.5933/JKAPD.2020.47.2.176
Publisher : The Korean Academy Of Pediatric Dentistry
Research Area : Medicine and Pharmacy > Dentistry
Received : February 15, 2020
Accepted : March 2, 2020
Published : May 29, 2020

Seohyun Park ¹, Jong-Soo Kim ², Sohee Oh ³

¹한림대학교 의과대학 한림대학교성심병원 소아치과학교실
²단국대학교
³한림대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to evaluate validity, reliability and reproducibility of tooth width (TW), arch length (AL) and arch length discrepancy (ALD) measured on a digital model taken via 3-dimensional model scanner and intraoral scanner compared to a plaster model. A total of 30 patients aged 12 to 18 were eligible for the study. 3 types of models were acquired from each patient: a conventional plaster model (P), a model scanned digital model (MSD) taken via Freedom UHD® and an intraoral scanned digital model (ISD) taken via CS3600® in-vivo. The reliability of TW and AL in each group was evaluated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient, while the reproducibility was evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficient. The validity of space analysis was assessed by paired t-test. As a result, all measurements of P, MSD and ISD groups showed favorable reliability and reproducibility. Most of measurements for space analysis in MSD group and TW in ISD group also presented high validity. AL and ALD presented statistically significant difference between P and ISD group. The validity of measurements of space analysis in ISD group was short in doubt to valid, but clinically acceptable. Both MSD and ISD are clinically acceptable to use for space analysis but clinician should be aware that errors can be found using a digital model.

KEYWORDS

Model scanned digital model, Intraoral scanned digital model, Digital measurement, Tooth width, Arch length, Arch length discrepancy

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.

[journal] Richter AE / 2011 / Incidence of caries lesions among patients treated with comprehensive orthodontics / Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 139 : 657~664

[journal] Crosby DR / 1989 / The occurrence of tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups / Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 95 : 457~461

[journal] Schirmer UR / 1997 / Manual and computer-aided space analysis : a comparative study / Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 112 : 676~680

[journal] Motohashi N / 1999 / A 3D computer-aided design system applied to diagnosis and treatment planning in orthodontics and orthognathic surgery / Eur J Orthod 21 : 263~274

[journal] Zilberman O / 2003 / Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models / Angle Orthod 73 : 301~306

[journal] Fleming PS / 2011 / Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models : a systematic review / Orthod Craniofac Res 14 : 1~16

[journal] Rossini G / 2016 / Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes : A systematic review / Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 149 : 161~170

[journal] Tomassetti JJ / 2001 / A comparison of 3 computerized Bolton tooth-size analyses with a commonly used method / Angle Orthod 71 : 351~357

[journal] Santoro M / 2003 / Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models / Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 124 : 101~105

[journal] Stevens DR / 2006 / Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models : comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements / Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 129 : 794~803

[journal] Mullen SR / 2007 / Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models / Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 132 : 346~352

[journal] Goracci C / 2016 / Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions : a systematic review of the clinical evidence / Eur J Orthod 38 : 422~428

[journal] Grunheid T / 2014 / Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner : an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance / Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 146 : 673~682

[journal] Jeong ID / 2016 / Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner : An in vitro study / J Prosthet Dent 115 : 755~759

[journal] Camardella LT / 2017 / Accuracy and reproducibility of measurements on plaster models and digital models created using an intraoral scanner / J Orofac Orthop 78 : 211~220

[journal] Malik J / 2018 / Comparison of accuracy between a conventional and two digital intraoral impression techniques / Int J Prosthodont 31 : 107~113

[journal] Sfondrini MF / 2018 / Computerized casts for orthodontic purpose using powder-free intraoral scanners : accuracy, execution time, and patient feedback / Biomed Res Int 2018 : 4103232~

[journal] Tomita Y / 2018 / Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plastermodel methods and intraoral scanning / Dent Mater J 37 : 628~633

[journal] Kihara H / 2020 / Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry : A literature review / J Prosthodont Res 64 : 109~113

[journal] Ender A / 2016 / In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions / J Prosthet Dent 115 : 313~320

[journal] Zhang F / 2016 / Validity of intraoral scans compared with plaster models : An in-vivo comparison of dental measurements and 3D surface analysis / PLoS One 11 : e0157713~

[journal] Nedelcu R / 2018 / Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions : A novel in vivo analysis method / J Dent 69 : 110~118

[journal] Lee S / 2018 / Reproducibility of an intraoral scanner : A comparison between in-vivo and ex-vivo scans / Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 154 : 305~310

[journal] Jiménez-Gayosso SI / 2018 / Difference between manual and digital measurements of dental arches of orthodontic patients / Medicine 97 : e10887~

[journal] Mangano A / 2018 / Conventional vs digital impressions : acceptability, treatment comfort and stress among young orthodontic patients / Open Dent J 12 : 118~124

[journal] Burhardt L / 2016 / Treatment comfort, time perception, and preference for conventional and digital impression techniques : A comparative study in young patients / Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 150 : 261~267

[journal] Ting Shu S / 2015 / Intraoral digital impression technique : A review / J Prosthodont 24 : 313~321

[journal] Kim EJ / 1998 / Reproducibility and accuracy of tooth size measurements obtained by the use of computer / Korean J Orthod : 563~573

[journal] Flugge TV / 2013 / Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner / Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 144 : 471~478

[journal] Gul Amuk N / 2019 / Comparison of dental measurements between conventional plaster models, digital models obtained by impression scanning and plaster model scanning / Int Orthod 17 : 151~158

KJCKorea
Journal Central

Journal of the Korean academy of pediatric dentistry 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.48

Validity, Reliability and Reproducibility of Space Analysis using Digital Model taken via Model Scanner and Intraoral Scanner: An In vivo Study

ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.

Journal of the Korean academy of pediatric dentistry 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.48

Validity, Reliability and Reproducibility of Space Analysis using Digital Model taken via Model Scanner and Intraoral Scanner: An In vivo Study

ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS

Statistics

Tools

Issue List

Citation status

KCI Citation Counts (0)

REFERENCES (30) * References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.

Search PDF

Citation

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.