Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Oral Health
Published in: BMC Oral Health 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Comparison of the occlusal contact area of virtual models and actual models: a comparative in vitro study on Class I and Class II malocclusion models

Authors: Hyemin Lee, Jooly Cha, Youn-Sic Chun, Minji Kim

Published in: BMC Oral Health | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Backgrounds

The occlusal registration of virtual models taken by intraoral scanners sometimes shows patterns which seem much different from the patients’ occlusion. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the accuracy of virtual occlusion by comparing virtual occlusal contact area with actual occlusal contact area using a plaster model in vitro.

Methods

Plaster dental models, 24 sets of Class I models and 20 sets of Class II models, were divided into a Molar, Premolar, and Anterior group. The occlusal contact areas calculated by the Prescale method and the virtual occlusion by scanning method were compared, and the ratio of the molar and incisor area were compared in order to find any particular tendencies.

Results

There was no significant difference between the Prescale results and the scanner results in both the molar and premolar groups (p = 0.083 and 0.053, respectively). On the other hand, there was a significant difference between the Prescale and the scanner results in the anterior group with the scanner results presenting overestimation of the occlusal contact points (p < 0.05). In Molars group, the regression analysis shows that the two variables express linear correlation and has a linear equation with a slope of 0.917. R2 is 0.930. Groups of Premolars and Anteriors had a week linear relationship and greater dispersion.

Conclusions

Difference between the actual and virtual occlusion revealed in the anterior portion, where overestimation was observed in the virtual model obtained from the scanning method. Nevertheless, molar and premolar areas showed relatively accurate occlusal contact area in the virtual model.
Literature
1.
Ryeo-Woon K, Geun-Won J, Yu-Ri H, Mee-Kyoung S. Understanding and application of digital impression in dentistry. Kor J Dent Mater. 2014;41(4):253–61.CrossRef
2.
Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 136(1):16.e11–4. discussion 16
3.
Lippold C, Kirschneck C, Schreiber K, Abukiress S, Tahvildari A, Moiseenko T, Danesh G. Methodological accuracy of digital and manual model analysis in orthodontics - a retrospective clinical study. Comput Biol Med. 2015;62:103–9.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Sousa MV, Vasconcelos EC, Janson G, Garib D, Pinzan A. Accuracy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;142(2):269–73.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(6):1687–94.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Kim J, Chun Y-S, Kim M: Accuracy of bracket positions with a CAD/CAM indirect bonding system in posterior teeth with different cusp heights. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop, 153(2):298–307.
7.
Dauti R, Cvikl B, Franz A, Schwarze UY, Lilaj B, Rybaczek T, Moritz A. Comparison of marginal fit of cemented zirconia copings manufactured after digital impression with lava™ C.O.S and conventional impression technique. BMC Oral Health. 2016;16(1):129.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Thor A. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18:27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Im J, Kang SH, Lee JY, Kim MK, Kim JH. Surgery-first approach using a three-dimensional virtual setup and surgical simulation for skeletal class III correction. Korean J Orthod. 2014;44(6):330–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Ji-Man P, Seong-Joo H, Yoon-Sic C. The methods for occlusal force measurement and their clinical application. J Kor Dent Assoc. 2012;50(1):22–30.
12.
Afrashtehfar KI, Qadeer S. Computerized occlusal analysis as an alternative occlusal indicator. Cranio. 2016;34(1):52–7.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Jae-Ho Y. A preliminary study on quantitative analysis using the COMPUTERIZED t-scan system. J Kor Dent Assoc. 1989;27(9):861–7.
14.
Garrido Garcia VC, Garcia Cartagena A, Gonzalez Sequeros O. Evaluation of occlusal contacts in maximum intercuspation using the T-scan system. J Oral Rehabil. 1997;24(12):899–903.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Ando K, Kurosawa M, Fuwa Y, Kondo T, Goto S. A study on measuring occlusal contact area using silicone impression materials: an application of this method to the bite force measurement system using the pressure-sensitive sheet. Dent Mater J. 2007;26(6):898–905.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Hattori Y, Okugawa H, Watanabe M. Occlusal force measurement using dental prescale. J Jpn Prosthodont Soc. 1994;38:835–41.CrossRef
17.
Suzuki T, Watanabe T, Yoshitomi N, Ishinabe S, Kumagai H, Uchida T. Evaluation of a new measuring system for occlusal force with pressure sensitive sheet. J Jpn Prosthodont Soc. 1994;38:966–73.CrossRef
18.
Hidaka O, Iwasaki M, Saito M, Morimoto T. Influence of clenching intensity on bite force balance, occlusal contact area, and average bite pressure. J Dent Res. 1999;78(7):1336–44.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Nilsson J, Richards RG, Thor A, Kamer L. Virtual bite registration using intraoral digital scanning, CT and CBCT: in vitro evaluation of a new method and its implication for orthognathic surgery. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2016;44(9):1194–200.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Solaberrieta E, Minguez R, Barrenetxea L, Otegi JR, Szentpetery A. Comparison of the accuracy of a 3-dimensional virtual method and the conventional method for transferring the maxillary cast to a virtual articulator. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113(3):191–7.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Iwaki Y, Wakabayashi N, Igarashi Y. Dimensional accuracy of optical bite registration in single and multiple unit restorations. Oper Dent. 2013;38(3):309–15.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Anh JW, Park JM, Chun YS, Kim M, Kim M. A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction. Korean J Orthod. 2016;46(1):3–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Park HR, Park JM, Chun YS, Lee KN, Kim M. Changes in views on digital intraoral scanners among dental hygienists after training in digital impression taking. BMC oral health. 2015;15(1):151.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Kim J, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Shin IH, Kim M. Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(2):221–30.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Jung YR, Park JM, Chun YS, Lee KN, Kim M. Accuracy of four different digital intraoral scanners: effects of the presence of orthodontic brackets and wire. Int J Comput Dent. 2016;19(3):203–15.PubMed
26.
Gan N, Xiong Y, Jiao T. Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for whole upper jaws, including full dentitions and palatal soft tissues. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0158800.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Gonzalez de Villaumbrosia P, Martinez-Rus F, Garcia-Orejas A, Salido MP, Pradies G. In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of six extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologiesJ Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(4):543–550.e541.CrossRefPubMed
28.
HR Y, YJ C, KH K, CR C. Comparisons of occlusal force according to occlusal relationship, skeletal pattern, age and gender in Koreans. Korean J Orthod. 2010;40(5):304–13.CrossRef
29.
Adolphs N, Liu W, Keeve E, Hoffmeister B. RapidSplint: virtual splint generation for orthognathic surgery – results of a pilot series. Computer Aided Surgery. 2014;19(1–3):20–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(2):121–8.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2013;144(3):471–8.CrossRef
32.
Mangano FG, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, Mijiritsky E, Mangano C. Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral Implantology: a comparative in vitro study. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0163107.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Persson AS, Oden A, Andersson M, Sandborgh-Englund G. Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: virtual three-dimensional analysis of exactness. Dent Mater. 2009;25(7):929–36.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111(3):186–94.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Müller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS pod scanner. Quintessence Int. 2016;47(4)
36.
Solaberrieta E, Garmendia A, Brizuela A, Otegi JR, Pradies G, Szentpetery A. Intraoral digital impressions for virtual occlusal records: section quantity and dimensions. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:7173824.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
DeLong R, Ko C-C, Anderson GC, Hodges JS, Douglas W. Comparing maximum intercuspal contacts of virtual dental patients and mounted dental casts. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88(6):622–30.CrossRefPubMed
38.
MS K, SC P. Registration of dental range images from a intraoral scanner. Korean J CDE. 2016;21(3):296–305.
39.
DeLong R, Ko CC, Olson I, Hodges JS, Douglas WH. Helical axis errors affect computer-generated occlusal contacts. J Dent Res. 2002;81(5):338–43.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparison of the occlusal contact area of virtual models and actual models: a comparative in vitro study on Class I and Class II malocclusion models
Authors
Hyemin Lee
Jooly Cha
Youn-Sic Chun
Minji Kim
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Oral Health / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6831
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0566-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Oral Health 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Thickness of the buccal bone wall and root angulation in the maxilla and mandible: an approach to cone beam computed tomography

Research article

History of periodontal treatment and risk for intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR)

Research article

Psychological problems and quality of life of patients with oral mucosal diseases: a preliminary study in Chinese population

Research article

The knowledge and use of population-based methods for caries detection

Research article

Validation and comparison of the Arabic versions of GOHAI and OHIP-14 in patients with and without denture experience

Research article

Dental caries and their association with socioeconomic characteristics, oral hygiene practices and eating habits among preschool children in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates — the NOPLAS project