Top

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie

Published in:

01-07-2013 | Original article

Digital 3D image of bimaxillary casts connected by a vestibular scan

Authors: Dr. S. Wriedt, I. Schmidtmann, M. Niemann, H. Wehrbein

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 4/2013

Abstract

Aim

The task of three-dimensionally aligning digital images of scans taken from maxillary and mandibular casts can be accomplished by scanning an interocclusal record, but vestibular scanning is also an option. The present study addressed whether this latter technique is precise enough to be used in orthodontic practice.

Materials and methods

A total of 10 pairs of casts representing different types of tooth and jaw malposition were scanned with a photo-optical scanner (Activity 102; Smart Optics, Bochum, Germany). After obtaining detailed single scans of each upper and lower jaw, each pair of casts was rigidly aligned with instant glue. Subsequently, three vestibular scans were taken and were then merged with the single-jaw scans to form virtual bimaxillary models. These virtual models were superimposed with each other and analyzed, using the structures of the mandible as constant and documenting the highest occlusal and vestibular deviations measured on each maxillary tooth or gingival region. Descriptive analysis and a mixed linear model were performed with SPSS and SAS.

Results

The greatest deviations between the virtual bimaxillary models averaged 37±28 μm. No significant differences were seen between tooth sites along the dental arch, dentate versus edentulous sites, or occlusal versus vestibular surfaces. The mean of the greatest deviations between repeated scans were found to be 28±14 μm (vestibular scans) and 15±8 μm (single-jaw scans).

Conclusion

The presented approach of generating bimaxillary study models in a virtual environment with the help of vestibular scans meets the precision requirements for use in orthodontics and can be employed in further studies.

Al-Khatib AR, Rajion ZA, Masudi SM et al (2011) Tooth size and dental arch dimensions: a stereophotogrammetric study in Southeast Asian Malays. Orthod Craniofac Res 14:243–253PubMedCrossRef

Asquith J, McIntyre G (2012) Dental arch relationships on three-dimensional digital study models and conventional plaster study models for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 49:530–534PubMedCrossRef

Bell A, Ayoub AF, Siebert P (2003) Assessment of the accuracy of a three-dimensional imaging system for archiving dental study models. J Orthod 30:219–223PubMedCrossRef

Berneburg M, Schubert C, Einem C von, et al (2010) The reproducibility of landmarks on three-dimensional images of 4- to 6-year-old children. J Orofac Orthop 71:256–264PubMedCrossRef

Boldt F, Weinzierl C, Hertrich K et al (2009) Comparison of the spatial landmark scatter of various 3D digitalization methods. J Orofac Orthop 70:247–263PubMedCrossRef

Chadwick RG, Mitchell HL, Cameron I et al (1997) Development of a novel system for assessing tooth and restoration wear. J Dent 25:41–47PubMedCrossRef

Dalstra M, Melsen B (2009) From alginate impressions to digital virtual models: accuracy and reproducibility. J Orthod 36:36–41 (discussion 14)PubMedCrossRef

Dastane A, Vaidyanathan TK, Vaidyanathan J et al (1996) Development and evaluation of a new 3-D digitization and computer graphic system to study the anatomic tissue and restoration surfaces. J Oral Rehabil 23:25–34PubMedCrossRef

DeLong R, Knorr S, Anderson GC et al (2007) Accuracy of contacts calculated from 3D images of occlusal surfaces. J Dent35:528–534

10.

DeLong R, Ko CC, Anderson GC et al (2002) Comparing maximum intercuspal contacts of virtual dental patients and mounted dental casts. J Prosthet Dent 88:622–630PubMedCrossRef

11.

Dixon DL (2000) Overview of articulation materials and methods for the prosthodontic patient. J Prosthet Dent 83:235–247PubMedCrossRef

12.

Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A (2011) Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res14:1–16CrossRef

13.

Hiew LT, Ong SH, Foong KWC (2009) Optimal occlusion of teeth using planar structure information. Machine Vision Applications 21:735–747CrossRef

14.

Hoefert CS, Bacher M, Herberts T et al (2010) Implementing a superimposition and measurement model for 3D sagittal analysis of therapy-induced changes in facial soft tissue: a pilot study. J Orofac Orthop 71:221–234PubMedCrossRef

15.

Hofmann E, Rodich M, Hirschfelder U (2011) The topography of displaced canines: a 3D-CT study. J Orofac Orthop 72:247–252, 54–60PubMedCrossRef

16.

Horton HM, Miller JR, Gaillard PR et al (2010) Technique comparison for efficient orthodontic tooth measurements using digital models. Angle Orthod 80:254–261PubMedCrossRef

17.

Imbery TA, Nehring J, Janus C et al (2010) Accuracy and dimensional stability of extended-pour and conventional alginate impression materials. J Am Dent Assoc 141:32–39PubMed

18.

Kamegawa M, Nakamura M, Tsutsumi S (2008) 3D morphological measurements of dental casts with occlusal relationship using microfocus X-ray CT. Dent Mater J 27:549–554PubMedCrossRef

19.

Kau CH, Littlefield J, Rainy N et al (2010) Evaluation of CBCT digital models and traditional models using the Little’s Index. Angle Orthod 80:435–439PubMedCrossRef

20.

Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R et al (2008) A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod 35:191–201 (discussion 175)PubMedCrossRef

21.

Kochel J, Meyer-Marcotty P, Kochel M et al (2010) 3D soft tissue analysis—part 2: vertical parameters. J Orofac Orthop 71:207–220PubMedCrossRef

22.

Kochel J, Meyer-Marcotty P, Strnad F et al (2010) 3D soft tissue analysis—part 1: sagittal parameters. J Orofac Orthop 71:40–52PubMedCrossRef

23.

Leenarts CM, Bartzela TN, Bronkhorst EM et al (2012) Photographs of dental casts or digital models: rating dental arch relationships in bilateral cleft lip and palate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:180–185PubMedCrossRef

24.

Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS et al (2009) Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 136:16 e1–e4 (discussion)PubMedCrossRef

25.

Mandikos MN (1998) Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: an update on clinical use. Aust Dent J 43:428–434PubMedCrossRef

26.

Mayers M, Firestone AR, Rashid R et al (2005) Comparison of peer assessment rating (PAR) index scores of plaster and computer-based digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 128:431–434PubMedCrossRef

27.

Mullen SR, Martin CA, Ngan P et al (2007) Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 132:346–352PubMedCrossRef

28.

Pauls AH (2010) Therapeutic accuracy of individualized brackets in lingual orthodontics. J Orofac Orthop 71:348–361PubMedCrossRef

29.

Quimby ML, Vig KW, Rashid RG et al (2004) The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. Angle Orthod 74:298–303PubMed

30.

Sade Hoefert C, Bacher M, Herberts T et al (2010) 3D soft tissue changes in facial morphology in patients with cleft lip and palate and class III mal occlusion under therapy with rapid maxillary expansion and delaire facemask. J Orofac Orthop 71:136–151CrossRef

31.

Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M et al (2003) Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 124:101–105PubMedCrossRef

32.

Steinhäuser-Andresen S, Detterbeck A, Funk C et al (2011) Pilot study on accuracy and dimensional stability of impression materials using industrial CT technology. J Orofac Orthop 72:111–124PubMedCrossRef

33.

Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B et al (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 129:794–803PubMedCrossRef

34.

Straga RW (2009) Comparison of occlusal contacts on mounted dental models to contacts identified on digital 3D models using a new virtual alignment method. Dissertation, University of British Columbia

35.

White AJ, Fallis DW, Vandewalle KS (2010) Analysis of intra-arch and interarch measurements from digital models with 2 impression materials and a modeling process based on cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137:456 e1–e9 (discussion 7)PubMedCrossRef

36.

Wriedt S, Jaklin J, Al-Nawas B et al (2012) Impacted upper canines: examination and treatment proposal based on 3D versus 2D diagnosis. J Orofac Orthop 73:28–40PubMedCrossRef

Title: Digital 3D image of bimaxillary casts connected by a vestibular scan
Authors: Dr. S. Wriedt
I. Schmidtmann
M. Niemann
H. Wehrbein
Publication date: 01-07-2013
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 4/2013
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-013-0152-1

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Digital 3D image of bimaxillary casts connected by a vestibular scan

Abstract

Aim

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Aim

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2013

Shear bond strength of an experimental composite bracket

Survey of oral health-related quality of life among skeletal malocclusion patients following orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery

Effectiveness of stabilization splints in the treatment of temporomandibular disorders

Maxillary reaction patterns identified by three-dimensional analysis of casts from infants with unilateral cleft lip and palate

DGKFO-Mitteilungen

Cephalometric assessment of human fetal head specimens