Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 1/2018

01-01-2018 | Original Paper

Correlation and agreement of a digital and conventional method to measure arch parameters

Authors: Nes Nawi, Alizae Marny Mohamed, Murshida Marizan Nor, Nor Atika Ashar

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The aim of the present study was to determine the overall reliability and validity of arch parameters measured digitally compared to conventional measurement.

Methods

A sample of 111 plaster study models of Down syndrome (DS) patients were digitized using a blue light three-dimensional (3D) scanner. Digital and manual measurements of defined parameters were performed using Geomagic analysis software (Geomagic Studio 2014 software, 3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) on digital models and with a digital calliper (Tuten, Germany) on plaster study models. Both measurements were repeated twice to validate the intraexaminer reliability based on intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) using the independent t test and Pearson’s correlation, respectively. The Bland–Altman method of analysis was used to evaluate the agreement of the measurement between the digital and plaster models.

Results

No statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were found between the manual and digital methods when measuring the arch width, arch length, and space analysis. In addition, all parameters showed a significant correlation coefficient (r ≥ 0.972; p < 0.01) between all digital and manual measurements. Furthermore, a positive agreement between digital and manual measurements of the arch width (90–96%), arch length and space analysis (95–99%) were also distinguished using the Bland–Altman method.

Conclusion

These results demonstrate that 3D blue light scanning and measurement software are able to precisely produce 3D digital model and measure arch width, arch length, and space analysis. The 3D digital model is valid to be used in various clinical applications.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Abdul Rahim FS, Mohamed AM, Marizan Nor M, Saub R (2014) Malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need evaluated among subjects with Down syndrome using the Dental aesthetic Index (DAI). Angle Orthod 84:600–606CrossRefPubMed Abdul Rahim FS, Mohamed AM, Marizan Nor M, Saub R (2014) Malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need evaluated among subjects with Down syndrome using the Dental aesthetic Index (DAI). Angle Orthod 84:600–606CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Abizadeh N, Moles DR, O’Neill J, Noar JH (2012) Digital versus plaster study models: how accurate and reproducible are they? J Orthod 39:151–159CrossRefPubMed Abizadeh N, Moles DR, O’Neill J, Noar JH (2012) Digital versus plaster study models: how accurate and reproducible are they? J Orthod 39:151–159CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Akyalcin S, Dyer DJ, English JD, Sar D (2013) Comparison of 3-dimensional dental models from different sources: diagnostic accuracy and surface registration analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144:831–837CrossRef Akyalcin S, Dyer DJ, English JD, Sar D (2013) Comparison of 3-dimensional dental models from different sources: diagnostic accuracy and surface registration analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144:831–837CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Asquith J, Gillgrass T, Mossey P (2007) Three-dimensional imaging of orthodontic models: a pilot study. Eur J Orthod 29:517–522CrossRefPubMed Asquith J, Gillgrass T, Mossey P (2007) Three-dimensional imaging of orthodontic models: a pilot study. Eur J Orthod 29:517–522CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference 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 49:530–534CrossRefPubMed 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 49:530–534CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Bootvang K, Liu Z, McGrath C, Hagg U, Wong RWK, Bendeus M, Yeung S (2010) Virtual model analysis as an alternative approach to plaster model analysis: reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 32:589–595CrossRef Bootvang K, Liu Z, McGrath C, Hagg U, Wong RWK, Bendeus M, Yeung S (2010) Virtual model analysis as an alternative approach to plaster model analysis: reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 32:589–595CrossRef
7.
go back to reference El-Zanaty HM, El-Beialy AR, El-Ezz AMA, Attia KH, El-Bialy AR, Mostafa YA (2010) Three-dimensional dental measurements: an alternative to study models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 137:259–265CrossRef El-Zanaty HM, El-Beialy AR, El-Ezz AMA, Attia KH, El-Bialy AR, Mostafa YA (2010) Three-dimensional dental measurements: an alternative to study models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 137:259–265CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A (2011) Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with study models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 14:1–16CrossRefPubMed Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A (2011) Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with study models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 14:1–16CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Hunter WS, Priest WS (1960) Errors and discrepancies in measurement of tooth size. J Dent Res 39:405–414CrossRefPubMed Hunter WS, Priest WS (1960) Errors and discrepancies in measurement of tooth size. J Dent Res 39:405–414CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Keating AP, Kox J, Bibb R, Zhurov AI (2008) A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod 35:191–201CrossRefPubMed Keating AP, Kox J, Bibb R, Zhurov AI (2008) A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod 35:191–201CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH, Vogels DS III (2008) 2008 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures, part 1: results and trends. J Clin Orthod 42:625–640PubMed Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH, Vogels DS III (2008) 2008 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures, part 1: results and trends. J Clin Orthod 42:625–640PubMed
13.
go back to reference Kim J, Heo G, Lagravere MO (2014) Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to study models and cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 84:443–450CrossRefPubMed Kim J, Heo G, Lagravere MO (2014) Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to study models and cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 84:443–450CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Kumar AA, Phillip A, Kumar S, Rawat A, Priya S, Kumaran V (2015) Digital model as an alternative to plaster model in assessment of space analysis? J Pharm Bioallied Sci 7(Suppl 2):S465–S469CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kumar AA, Phillip A, Kumar S, Rawat A, Priya S, Kumaran V (2015) Digital model as an alternative to plaster model in assessment of space analysis? J Pharm Bioallied Sci 7(Suppl 2):S465–S469CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ (2009) Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 136:16.e1–16.e4 Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ (2009) Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 136:16.e1–16.e4
16.
go back to reference Mestrovic S, Miksic M, Stefanac-Papic J, Stipetic J (2002) Prevalence of malocclusion in patients with Down’s syndrome. Acta Stomatol Croat 36:239–241 Mestrovic S, Miksic M, Stefanac-Papic J, Stipetic J (2002) Prevalence of malocclusion in patients with Down’s syndrome. Acta Stomatol Croat 36:239–241
17.
go back to reference Moreira DD, Gribel BF, Torres GDR, Vanconcelos KF, De Freitas DQ, Ambrosano GMB (2014) Reliability of measurements on virtual models obtained from scanning of impressions and conventional study models. Braz J Oral Sci 13:297–302CrossRef Moreira DD, Gribel BF, Torres GDR, Vanconcelos KF, De Freitas DQ, Ambrosano GMB (2014) Reliability of measurements on virtual models obtained from scanning of impressions and conventional study models. Braz J Oral Sci 13:297–302CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Mullen SR, Martin CA, Ngan P, Gladwin M (2007) Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and study models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 132:346–352CrossRef Mullen SR, Martin CA, Ngan P, Gladwin M (2007) Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and study models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 132:346–352CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Naidu D, Freer TJ (2013) Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: a comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144:304–310CrossRef Naidu D, Freer TJ (2013) Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: a comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144:304–310CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Oliveira ACB, Paiva SM, Campos MR, Czeresnia D (2007) Factors associated with malocclusions and adolescents with Down syndrome. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133:489.e1–489.e8 Oliveira ACB, Paiva SM, Campos MR, Czeresnia D (2007) Factors associated with malocclusions and adolescents with Down syndrome. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133:489.e1–489.e8
21.
go back to reference Peluso MJ, Josell SD, Levine SW, Lorei BJ (2004) Digital models: an introduction. Semin Orthod 10:226–238CrossRef Peluso MJ, Josell SD, Levine SW, Lorei BJ (2004) Digital models: an introduction. Semin Orthod 10:226–238CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Quimby ML, Vig KWL, Rashid RG, Firestone AR (2004) The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer–based digital models. Angle Orthod 74:298–303PubMed Quimby ML, Vig KWL, Rashid RG, Firestone AR (2004) The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer–based digital models. Angle Orthod 74:298–303PubMed
23.
go back to reference Radeke J, Von der Wense C, Lapatki BG (2014) Comparison of orthodontic measurements on dental plaster casts and 3D scans. J Orofac Orthop 75:264–274CrossRefPubMed Radeke J, Von der Wense C, Lapatki BG (2014) Comparison of orthodontic measurements on dental plaster casts and 3D scans. J Orofac Orthop 75:264–274CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Reuschl RP, Heuer W, Stiesch M, Wenzel D, Dittmer MP (2016) Reliability and validity of measurements on digital models and study models. Eur J Orthod 38:22–26CrossRefPubMed Reuschl RP, Heuer W, Stiesch M, Wenzel D, Dittmer MP (2016) Reliability and validity of measurements on digital models and study models. Eur J Orthod 38:22–26CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Rheude B, Sadowsky PL, Ferriera A, Jacobson A (2005) An evaluation of the use of digital study models in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Angle Orthod 75:300–304PubMed Rheude B, Sadowsky PL, Ferriera A, Jacobson A (2005) An evaluation of the use of digital study models in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Angle Orthod 75:300–304PubMed
26.
go back to reference Santoro M, Ayoub ME, Pardi VA, Cangialosi TJ (2003) Comparison of measurements made on digital and study models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 124:101–105CrossRef Santoro M, Ayoub ME, Pardi VA, Cangialosi TJ (2003) Comparison of measurements made on digital and study models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 124:101–105CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Shahid F, Alam MK, Khamis MF, Muroaka R, Keisuke N, Norisama O (2014) validity and reliabilty of digital model measurements: a digital stereomicroscopic study. J Hard Tissue Biol 23:439–444CrossRef Shahid F, Alam MK, Khamis MF, Muroaka R, Keisuke N, Norisama O (2014) validity and reliabilty of digital model measurements: a digital stereomicroscopic study. J Hard Tissue Biol 23:439–444CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Shastry S, Park JH (2014) Evaluation of the use of digital study models in postgraduate orthodontic programs in the United States and Canada. Angle Orthod 84:62–67CrossRefPubMed Shastry S, Park JH (2014) Evaluation of the use of digital study models in postgraduate orthodontic programs in the United States and Canada. Angle Orthod 84:62–67CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Sousa MVS, Vasconcelos EC, Janson G, Garib D, Pinzan A (2012) Accuracy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 142:269–273CrossRef Sousa MVS, Vasconcelos EC, Janson G, Garib D, Pinzan A (2012) Accuracy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 142:269–273CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Watanabe-Kanno GA, Abrao J, Miasiro Juniou H, Sanchez-Ayala A, Lagravere MO (2009) Reproducibility, reliability and validity of measurements obtained from Cecile3 digital models. Braz Oral Res 23:288–295CrossRefPubMed Watanabe-Kanno GA, Abrao J, Miasiro Juniou H, Sanchez-Ayala A, Lagravere MO (2009) Reproducibility, reliability and validity of measurements obtained from Cecile3 digital models. Braz Oral Res 23:288–295CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Whetten JL, Williamson PC, Heo G, Varnhagen C, Major PW (2006) Variations in orthodontic treatment planning decisions of Class II patients between virtual 3-dimensional models and traditional plaster study models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 130:485–491CrossRef Whetten JL, Williamson PC, Heo G, Varnhagen C, Major PW (2006) Variations in orthodontic treatment planning decisions of Class II patients between virtual 3-dimensional models and traditional plaster study models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 130:485–491CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Wiranto MG, Engelbrect WP, Nolthenius HET, Van der Meer WJ, Ren Y (2013) Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 143:140–147CrossRef Wiranto MG, Engelbrect WP, Nolthenius HET, Van der Meer WJ, Ren Y (2013) Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 143:140–147CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Zilberman O, Huggare JAV, Parikakis KA (2003) Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod 73:301–306PubMed Zilberman O, Huggare JAV, Parikakis KA (2003) Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod 73:301–306PubMed
Metadata
Title
Correlation and agreement of a digital and conventional method to measure arch parameters
Authors
Nes Nawi
Alizae Marny Mohamed
Murshida Marizan Nor
Nor Atika Ashar
Publication date
01-01-2018
Publisher
Springer Medizin
Published in
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-017-0111-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 1/2018 Go to the issue

Mitteilungen der DGKFO

Mitteilungen der DGKFO