Comparison of Arch Widths Measurements Made on Digital and Plaster Models

Aphiwat Sedtasuppana; Kulthida Nunthayanon; Thanit Prasitsak; Ratchawan Tanaslarak; Sirichom Satrawaha; Thosapol Piyapattamin

Authors

Aphiwat Sedtasuppana Faculty of Dentistry, Naresuan University, Thapo, Phitsanulok, 65000
Kulthida Nunthayanon Department of Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Naresuan University, Thapo, Phitsanulok, 65000
Thanit Prasitsak Department of Oral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, Naresuan University, Thapo, Phitsanulok, 65000
Ratchawan Tanaslarak Department of Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Naresuan University, Thapo, Phitsanulok, 65000
Sirichom Satrawaha Department of Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Naresuan University, Thapo, Phitsanulok, 65000
Thosapol Piyapattamin Department of Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Naresuan University, Thapo, Phitsanulok, 65000

Keywords:

intraoral scanner, arch width, digital model, plaster model, model analysis

Abstract

Objectives: To compare arch widths measurements made on plaster models by using digital caliper, digital models from direct intraoral scanned and indirect scanned on plaster models.
Materials and Methods: Upper and lower impressions were taken from thirty volunteers with Class I normal occlusion or Class I malocclusion with mild crowding. The plaster models were made and digital vernier caliper was used to measure inter-canine width, anterior arch width and posterior arch width. Each volunteer and models were also scanned by intraoral scanner. Then, the 3Shape Ortho software was used to measure the arch widths. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICCs) and One-way ANOVA (P<0.05) were used to assess intra-examiner reliability and validity of measurement between three groups.
Result: According to the high values of ICC (0.98-1.00), intra-examiner error could be neglected. Moreover, there were no statistical significantly different of inter-canine width, anterior arch width and posterior arch width between three methods of measurements. Although, scanning on lower arch intraorally was difficult due to the tongue but our result showed that there were no statistical significant different in digital models group compared with plaster models group.
Conclusion: The intraoral scanner can be used to measure arch widths with clinically acceptable accuracy and high reliability and reproducibility. In the future, it's possible to use digital models instead of conventional plaster models due to its advantages. Further study should compare tooth size by using these methods to prove the effective of intraoral scanner.

References

Akyalcin, S. (2011). Are digital models replacing plaster casts. Dentistry, 1(2), e102.

Atia, M. A., El-Gheriani, A. A., & Ferguson, D. J. (2015). Validity of 3 Shape scanner techniques: A comparison with the actual plaster study casts. Biometrics & Biostatistics International Journal, 2(2).

Baysal, A., Veli, I., & Uysal, T. (2013). Consistency of treatment planning decisions in Class II malocclusions using digital and plaster models. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, 26(1), 19–22.

Chintawongvanich, J., & Thongudomporn, U. (2013). Arch dimension and tooth size in Class I malocclusion patient with anterior crossbite. Journal of the Dental Association of Thailand, 63(1), 31-38.

Cuperus, A. M. R., Harms, M. C., Rangel, F. A., Bronkhorst, E. M., Schols, J. G., & Breuning, K. H. (2012). Dental models made with an intraoral scanner: a validation study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 142(3), 308-313.

Erbe, C., Ruf, S., Wöstmann, B., & Balkenhol, M. (2012). Dimensional stability of contemporary irreversible hydrocolloids: Humidor versus wet tissue storage. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 108(2), 114-122.

Fleming, P. S., Marinho, V., & Johal, A. (2011). Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research, 14(1), 1-16.

Hashim, H. A., & Al-Ghamdi, S. (2005). Tooth width and arch dimensions in normal and malocclusion samples: an odontometric study. Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, 6(2), 36-51.

Leifert, M. F., Leifert, M. M., Efstratiadis, S. S., & Cangialosi, T. J. (2009). Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 136(1), 16.e1–16.e4.

Manopatanakul, S., Lertrid, P.F.W., Law, I., & Boonmegaew, P. (2011). Trend of tooth width of Bangkok residents. Mahidol Dental Journal, 31(1), 1-14.

Mullen, S. R., Martin, C. A., Ngan, P., & Gladwin, M. (2007). Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 132(3), 346-352.

Naidu, D., & Freer, T. J. (2013). Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: a comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 144(2), 304-310.

Naidu, D., Scott, J., Ong, D., & Ho, C. T. (2009). Validity, reliability and reproducibility of three methods used to measure tooth widths for Bolton analyses. Australian orthodontic journal, 25(2), 97-103.

Pachêco-Pereira, C., De Luca Canto, G., Major, P. W., & Flores-Mir, C. (2015). Variation of orthodontic treatment decision-making based on dental model type: A systematic review. The Angle Orthodontist, 85(3), 501-509.

Quimby, M. L., Vig, K. W., Rashid, R. G., & Firestone, A. R. (2004). The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. The Angle orthodontist, 74(3), 298-303.

Reuschl, R. P., Heuer, W., Stiesch, M., Wenzel, D., & Dittmer, M. P. (2016). Reliability and validity of measurements on digital study models and plaster models. The European Journal of Orthodontics, 38(1), 22-26.

Rheude, B., Lionel Sadowsky, P. L., Ferriera, A., & Jacobson, A. (2005). An evaluation of the use of digital study models in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. The Angle Orthodontist, 75(3), 300-304.

Santoro, M., Galkin, S., Teredesai, M., Nicolay, O. F., & Cangialosi, T. J. (2003). Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics, 124(1), 101-105.

Schirmer, U. R., & Wiltshire, W. A. (1997). Manual and computer-aided space analysis: a comparative study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 112(6), 676-680.

Stevens, D. R., Flores-Mir, C., Nebbe, B., Raboud, D. W., Heo, G., & Major, P. W. (2006). Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics, 129(6), 794-803.

Tomassetti, J. J., Taloumis, L. J., Denny, J. M., & Fischer Jr, J. R. (2001). A comparison of 3 computerized Bolton tooth-size analyses with a commonly used method. The Angle Orthodontist, 71(5), 351-357.

Wiranto, M. G., Engelbrecht, W. P., Nolthenius, H. E. T., van der Meer, W. J., & 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. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 143(1), 140-147.

Whetten, J. L., Williamson, P. C., Heo, G., Varnhagen, C., & Major, P. W. (2006). Variations in orthodontic treatment planning decisions of Class II patients between virtual 3-dimensional models and traditional plaster study models. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 130(4), 485-491.

Zilberman, O., Huggare, J. A. V., & Parikakis, K. A. (2003). Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. The Angle Orthodontist, 73(3), 301-306.