Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

01-03-2016 | Original Article

Multibracket appliance: impression defaults and their reduction by blocking-out — a three-dimensional study

Authors: Susanne Wriedt, Moritz Foersch, Jan Daniel Muhle, Irene Schmidtmann, Heinrich Wehrbein

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 2/2016

Abstract

Objectives

This study examines accuracy of dental impressions and following plaster models taken during treatment with fixed appliances.

Materials and methods

A maxillary typodont was provided with brackets. Three examiners took impressions three times each of the variants: brackets only, archwire fixed by alastics, ligatures or Kobayashi-hooks, and brackets and archwire covered completely or just on the gingival side by protection or impression wax. Casts were scanned using Activity102^®. Virtual models were compared to the scan of the typodont using Comparison^®. Differences were measured and descriptively analyzed. Estimated means with 95 % confidence intervals were computed. Significance was assessed using linear mixed models.

Results

While pyramidal reference blocks had a mean difference of 0.019 mm (95 % CI = 0.017–0.021 mm) to the master model, teeth without attachments showed 0.097 mm (95 % CI = 0.082–0.111 mm), and teeth with brackets 0.169 mm (95 % CI = 0.156–0.182 mm) (p < 0.001). Smallest mean was found when using protection wax only on the gingival bracket side (0.152 mm (95 % CI = 0.113–0.192 mm)). Incisors deviated most (0.258 mm (95 % CI = 0.239–0.277 mm)).

Conclusions

Teeth with brackets make impressions more inaccurate because of undercuts. Removing the archwire before taking the impression or covering the brackets on the gingival side shows tendencies toward better precision.

Clinical relevance

Taking impressions during treatment with fixed appliances, some inaccuracy has to be taken into account.

Martin N, Martin MV, Jedynakiewicz NM (2007) The dimensional stability of dental impression materials following immersion in disinfecting solutions. Dent Mater 23(6):760–768. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2007.01.004 CrossRefPubMed

Muzaffar D, Braden M, Parker S, Patel MP (2012) The effect of disinfecting solutions on the dimensional stability of dental alginate impression materials. Dent Mater 28(7):749–755. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2012.03.013 CrossRefPubMed

Rodriguez JM, Bartlett DW (2011) The dimensional stability of impression materials and its effect on in vitro tooth wear studies. Dent Mater 27(3):253–258. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.010 CrossRefPubMed

Taylor RL, Wright PS, Maryan C (2002) Disinfection procedures: their effect on the dimensional accuracy and surface quality of irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials and gypsum casts. Dent Mater 18(2):103–110CrossRefPubMed

Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A (2011) Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofacial Res 14(1):1–16. doi:10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01503.x CrossRef

Ayoub AF, Wray D, Moos KF, Jin J, Niblett TB, Urquhart C, Mowforth P, Siebert P (1997) A three-dimensional imaging system for archiving dental study casts: a preliminary report. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 12(1):79–84PubMed

Berkowitz S, Pruzansky S (1968) Stereophotogrammerty of serial casts of cleft palate. Angle Orthod 38(2):136–149. doi:10.1043/0003-3219(1968)038<0136:SOSCOC>2.0.CO;2 PubMed

Ryden H, Bjelkhagen H, Martensson B (1982) Tooth position measurements on dental casts using holographic images. Am J Orthod 81(4):310–313CrossRefPubMed

Takasaki H (1970) Moire topography. Appl Opt 9(6):1467–1472CrossRefPubMed

10.

Trefny P, Smahel Z, Formanek P, Peterka M (2004) Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary dental casts using fourier transform profilometry: precision and reliability of the measurement. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 41(1):20–26. doi:10.1597/02-097 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Asquith J, Gillgrass T, Mossey P (2007) Three-dimensional imaging of orthodontic models: a pilot study. Eur J Orthod 29(5):517–522. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjm044 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Dalstra M, Melsen B (2009) From alginate impressions to digital virtual models: accuracy and reproducibility. J Orthod 36(1):36–41 discussion 14. doi:10.1179/14653120722905 CrossRefPubMed

13.

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 Off Publ Am Assoc Orthod Constituent Soc Am Board Orthod 136(1):16 e11–16 e14 discussion 16. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.019

14.

Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Tutein Nolthenius HE, 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 DentofacOrthop Off Publ Am Assoc Orthod Constituent Soc Am Board Orthod 143(1):140–147. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.06.018

15.

Alcan T, Ceylanoglu C, Baysal B (2009) The relationship between digital model accuracy and time-dependent deformation of alginate impressions. Angle Orthod 79(1):30–36. doi:10.2319/100307-475.1 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R, Zhurov AI (2008) A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod 35(3):191–201 discussion 175. doi:10.1179/146531207225022626 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Mullen SR, Martin CA, Ngan P, Gladwin M (2007) Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop Off Publ Am Assoc Orthod Constituent Soc Am Board Orthod 132(3):346–352. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.044

18.

Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ (2003) Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop Off Publ Am Assoc Orthod Constituent Soc Am Board Orthod 124(1):101–105. doi:10.1016/S0889540603001525

19.

Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW (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 Dentofac Orthop Off Publ Am Assoc Orthod Constituent Soc Am Board Orthod 129(6):794–803. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.08.023

20.

Wriedt S, Schmidtmann I, Niemann M, Wehrbein H (2013) Digital 3D image of bimaxillary casts connected by a vestibular scan. J Orofac Orthop Fortschr Kieferorthop Organ/Off J Deut Ges Kieferorthop 74(4):309–318. doi:10.1007/s00056-013-0152-1 CrossRef

21.

DeLong R, Heinzen M, Hodges JS, Ko CC, Douglas WH (2003) Accuracy of a system for creating 3D computer models of dental arches. J Dent Res 82(6):438–442CrossRefPubMed

22.

Persson AS, Oden A, Andersson M, Sandborgh-Englund G (2009) Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: virtual three-dimensional analysis of exactness. Dent Mater 25(7):929–936. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2009.01.100 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Asquith JA, McIntyre GT (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(5):530–534. doi:10.1597/10-099 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Redlich M, Weinstock T, Abed Y, Schneor R, Holdstein Y, Fischer A (2008) A new system for scanning, measuring and analyzing dental casts based on a 3D holographic sensor. Orthod Craniofacial Res 11(2):90–95. doi:10.1111/j.1601-6343.2007.00417.x CrossRef

25.

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(3):300–304. doi:10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[300:AEOTUO]2.0.CO;2 PubMed

26.

Braumann B, Rosenhayn SE, Bourauel C, Jäger A (2001) Two- or three-dimensional cast analysis in patients with cleft lip and palate? J Orofac Orthop Fortschr Kieferorthop Organ/Off J Deut Ges Kieferorthop 62(6):451–465CrossRef

27.

Boldt F, Weinzierl C, Hertrich K, Hirschfelder U (2009) Comparison of the spatial landmark scatter of various 3D digitalization methods. J Orofac Orthop Fortschr Kieferorthop Organ/Off J Deut Ges Kieferorthop 70(3):247–263. doi:10.1007/s00056-009-0902-2 CrossRef

28.

Craig RG (1988) Review of dental impression materials. Adv Dent Res 2(1):51–64PubMed

29.

Peters MC, Tieleman A (1992) Accuracy and dimensional stability of a combined hydrocolloid impression system. J Prosthet Dent 67(6):873–878CrossRefPubMed

30.

Christensen GJ (1966) Marginal fit of gold inlay castings. J Prosthet Dent 16(2):297–305CrossRefPubMed

31.

Cohen BI, Pagnillo M, Deutsch AS, Musikant BL (1995) Dimensional accuracy of three different alginate impression materials. J Prosthodont 4(3):195–199CrossRefPubMed

32.

Sousa MV, Vasconcelos EC, Janson G, Garib D, Pinzan A (2012) Accuracy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop Off Publ Am Assoc Orthod Constituent Soc Am Board Orthod 142(2):269–273. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.12.028

33.

Wada K (1992) Studies on dimensional accuracy of working casts made by various impression techniques—influence of undercuts on dimensional accuracy. Kokubyo Gakkai Zasshi 59(2):518–540CrossRefPubMed

34.

Grünheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE (2014) Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop Off Publ Am Assoc Orthod Constituent Soc Am Board Orthod 146(5):673–682. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023

Title: Multibracket appliance: impression defaults and their reduction by blocking-out — a three-dimensional study
Authors: Susanne Wriedt
Moritz Foersch
Jan Daniel Muhle
Irene Schmidtmann
Heinrich Wehrbein
Publication date: 01-03-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1514-4

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Multibracket appliance: impression defaults and their reduction by blocking-out — a three-dimensional study

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Interaction of enamel matrix proteins with human periodontal ligament cells

In vitro comparison of implant- versus gingiva-supported removable dentures in anterior and posterior applications

Management of the premaxilla in the treatment of bilateral cleft of lip and palate: what can the literature tell us?

Facial asymmetry quantitative evaluation in oculoauriculovertebral spectrum

Effect of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) on pulpal blood flow after orthodontic treatment: a randomized clinical trial

Three-dimensional culture of dental pulp stem cells in direct contact to tricalcium silicate cements