Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

Open Access 01-07-2020 | Original Article

Virtual setup in orthodontics: planning and evaluation

Authors: F. Baan, O. de Waard, R. Bruggink, T. Xi, E. M. Ongkosuwito, T. J. J. Maal

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 7/2020

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical accuracy of virtual orthodontic setups by using a new CBCT-based approach.

Materials and methods

Ten patients who underwent pre-surgical orthodontics were included in this study. Pre-treatment and pre-surgical cone-beam CT (CBCT) scans and digital dental models were available. The pre-treatment digital dental model was used to create an orthodontic virtual setup. The digital dental models were fused with the corresponding CBCT scans, and the two CBCT scans were aligned using voxel-based matching. Moving each individual tooth from the virtual setup to the final outcome allows the calculation of the accuracy of the virtual setup by using an iterative closest point algorithm. Differences between virtual setup and final outcome were recorded as well as the ICC between two observers.

Results

The inter-observer variability showed a high level of agreement between the observers. The largest mean difference between observers was found in the cranial/caudal direction (0.36 ± 0.30 mm) and the roll rotation (1.54 ± 0.98°). Differences between the virtual setup and final outcome were small in the translational direction (0.45 ± 0.48 mm). Rotational mean differences were larger with the pitch of the incisors (0.00 ± 7.97°) and molars (0.01 ± 10.26°) as largest difference. Excessive extrusion of all upper teeth and more anterior movement than planned were seen for both upper and lower arch. Lower molars showed less extrusion.

Clinical relevance

The data of this study can be used to obtain more insight in the accuracy and achievability of orthodontic virtual setup. Tooth movement can now be studied in more details which can lead to new insights.

Fonseca R, Baily L, Proffit W (2000) Patient selection for orthognathic surgery. Saunders, Philadelphia

Proothi M, Drew SJ, Sachs SA (2010) Motivating factors for patients undergoing orthognathic surgery evaluation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68(7):1555–1559CrossRef

Finlay PM, Atkinson JM, Moos KF (1995) Orthognathic surgery: patient expectations; psychological profile and satisfaction with outcome. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 33(1):9–14CrossRef

Stokbro K, Aagaard E, Torkov P, Bell RB, Thygesen T (2014) Virtual planning in orthognathic surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 43(8):957–965CrossRef

Nadjmi N, Mollemans W, Daelemans A, Van Hemelen G, Schutyser F, Bergé S (2010) Virtual occlusion in planning orthognathic surgical procedures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 39(5):457–462CrossRef

Swennen GRJ, Mollemans W, Schutyser F (2009) Three-dimensional treatment planning of orthognathic surgery in the era of virtual imaging. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67(10):2080–2092CrossRef

Wu T-Y, Lin H-H, Lo L-J, Ho C-T (2017) Postoperative outcomes of two- and three-dimensional planning in orthognathic surgery: a comparative study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 70(8):1101–1111CrossRef

Lin H-H, Chang H-W, Wang C-H, Kim SG, Lo L-J (2015) Three-dimensional computer-assisted orthognathic surgery. Ann Plast Surg 74:S118–S126CrossRef

Camardella LT, Rothier EKC, Vilella OV, Ongkosuwito EM, Breuning KH (2016) Virtual setup: application in orthodontic practice. J. Orofac. Orthop./Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 77(6):409–419CrossRef

10.

Strohl AM, Vitkus L (2017) Surgical orthodontics. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 25(4):332–336CrossRef

11.

Huang CS, Orthodontic YC (2015) Orthodontic principles and guidelines for the surgery-first approach to orthognathic surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44(12):1457–1462CrossRef

12.

Wirthlin JO, Shetye PR (2013) Orthodontist’s role in orthognathic surgery. Semin Plast Surg 27(3):137–144CrossRef

13.

Grauer D, Proffit WR (2011) Accuracy in tooth positioning with a fully customized lingual orthodontic appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 140(3):433–443CrossRef

14.

Barreto MS, Faber J, Vogel CJ, Araujo TM (2016) Reliability of digital orthodontic setups. Angle Orthod 86(2):255–259CrossRef

15.

Müller-Hartwich R, Jost-Brinkmann P-G, Schubert K (2016) Precision of implementing virtual setups for orthodontic treatment using CAD/CAM-fabricated custom archwires. J Orofac Orthop/Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 77(1):1–8CrossRef

16.

Farronato G, Giannini L, Galbiati G, Pisani L, Mortellaro C, Maspero C (2014) Verification of the reliability of the three-dimensional virtual presurgical orthodontic diagnostic protocol. J Craniofac Surg 25(6):2013–2016CrossRef

17.

Macchi A, Carrafiello G, Cacciafesta V, Norcini A (2006) Three-dimensional digital modeling and setup. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 129(5):605–610CrossRef

18.

Falter B, Schepers S, Vrielinck L, Lambrichts I, Politis C (2013) Predicted versus executed surgical orthognathic treatment. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 41(7):547–551CrossRef

19.

Kravitz ND, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Obrez A, Agran B (2009) How well does Invisalign work? A prospective clinical study evaluating the efficacy of tooth movement with Invisalign. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 135(1):27–35CrossRef

20.

Djeu G, Shelton C, Maganzini A (2005) Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 128(3):292–298CrossRef

21.

Kuncio D, Maganzini A, Shelton C, Freeman K (2007) Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment postretention outcomes compared using the american board of orthodontics objective grading system. Angle Orthod 77(5):864–869CrossRef

22.

Andrews LF (1972) The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod 62(3):296–309CrossRef

23.

Maes F, Collignon A, Vandermeulen D, Marchal G, Suetens P (1997) Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 16(2):187–198CrossRef

24.

Nada RM, Maal TJJ, Breuning KH, Bergé SJ, Mostafa YA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM (2011) Accuracy and reproducibility of Voxel based superimposition of cone beam computed tomography models on the anterior cranial base and the zygomatic arches. PLoS One 6(2)

25.

Besl PJ, McKay HD (1992) A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 14(2):239–256CrossRef

26.

Baan F et al. (2016) A new 3D tool for assessing the accuracy of bimaxillary surgery: the OrthoGnathicanAlyser. PLoS One 11(2)

27.

Choi DS, Jeong YM, Jang I, Jost-Brinkmann PG, Cha BK (2010) Accuracy and reliability of palatal superimposition of three-dimensional digital models. Angle Orthod 80(4):497–503PubMed

28.

Hoggan BR, Sadowsky C (2001) The use of palatal rugae for the assessment of anteroposterior tooth movements. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 119(5):482–488CrossRef

29.

Ganzer N, Feldmann I, Liv P, Bondemark L (2018) A novel method for superimposition and measurements on maxillary digital 3D models—studies on validity and reliability. Eur J Orthod 40(1):45–51CrossRef

30.

Christou P, Kiliaridis S (2008) Vertical growth-related changes in the positions of palatal rugae and maxillary incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 133(1):81–86CrossRef

31.

Han G, Li J, Wang S, Liu Y, Wang X, Zhou Y (2019) In-vitro assessment of the accuracy and reliability of mandibular dental model superimposition based on voxel-based cone-beam computed tomography registration. Korean J Orthod 49(2):97CrossRef

32.

Park T-J, Lee S-H, Lee K-S (2012) A method for mandibular dental arch superimposition using 3D cone beam CT and orthodontic 3D digital model. Korean J. Orthod. 42(4):169–181CrossRef

33.

Grünheid T, Loh C, Larson BE (2017) How accurate is Invisalign in nonextraction cases? Are predicted tooth positions achieved? Angle Orthod 87(6):809–815CrossRef

34.

Kau CH, Littlefield J, Rainy N, Nguyen JT, Creed B (2010) Evaluation of CBCT digital models and traditional models using the Little’s Index. Angle Orthod 80(3):435–439CrossRef

35.

Creed B, Kau CH, English JD, Xia JJ, Lee RP (2011) A comparison of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained from cone beam computerized tomography images and digital models. Semin Orthod 17(1):49–56CrossRef

36.

Lightheart KG et al (2012) Surface analysis of study models generated from OrthoCAD and cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 141(6):686–693CrossRef

37.

Xi T et al (2017) The effects of surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion (SARME) on the dental show and chin projection. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg 45(11):1835–1841CrossRef

38.

Staggers JA (1994) Vertical changes following first premolar extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 105(1):19–24CrossRef

39.

Pauls AH (2010) Behandlungsgenauigkeit mittels individualisierter brackets in der lingualtechnik. J Orofac Orthop 71(5):348–361CrossRef

40.

Larson BE, Vaubel CJ, Grünheid T (2013) Effectiveness of computer-assisted orthodontic treatment technology to achieve predicted outcomes. Angle Orthod 83(4):557–562CrossRef

Title: Virtual setup in orthodontics: planning and evaluation
Authors: F. Baan
O. de Waard
R. Bruggink
T. Xi
E. M. Ongkosuwito
T. J. J. Maal
Publication date: 01-07-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 7/2020
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03097-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Virtual setup in orthodontics: planning and evaluation

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Clinical relevance

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2020

Use of amniotic membrane for radial forearm free flap donor site coverage: clinical, functional and cosmetic outcomes

Patient-, tooth-, and dentist-related factors influencing long-term tooth retention after resective therapy in an academic setting—a retrospective study

Clinical performance of titanium-zirconium implants with a hydrophilic surface in patients with controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus: 2-year results from a prospective case-control clinical study

Evaluating the effects of orthodontic materials, field of view, and artifact reduction mode on accuracy of CBCT-based caries detection

Efficiency of desensitizing materials in xerostomic patients with head and neck cancer: a comparative clinical study

SARS-CoV-2 and dentistry