Palatal asymmetry assessed by intraoral scans: effects of sex, orthodontic treatment, and twinning. A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Symmetry is critical in perceived attractiveness, especially in female faces. The palate determines the teeth' alignment and supports facial soft tissues. Therefore, the study aimed to assess the effects of sex, orthodontic treatment, age, and heritability on the directional, anti-, and fluctuational asymmetry in the digital palatal model. METHODS: The palate of 113 twins, 86 female and 27 male subjects, with and without previous orthodontic treatment, were scanned by the Emerald (Planmeca) intraoral scanner. Three lines were constructed horizontally in the digital model, one between the right and left first upper molars and two between the first molars and incisive papilla. Two observers calculated the left and right angles between the mid-sagittal plane and molar-papilla lines. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to assess the inter-observer absolute agreement. The directional symmetry was determined by comparing the mean left and right angles. The antisymmetry was estimated from the distribution curve of the signed side difference. The fluctuating asymmetry was approximated from the magnitude of the absolute side difference. Finally, the genetic background was assessed by correlating the absolute side difference between monozygotic twin siblings. RESULTS: The right angle (31.1 degrees) was not significantly different from the left one (31.6 degrees). The signed side difference followed a normal distribution with a mean of -0.48 degrees. The absolute side difference (2.29 degrees, p < 0.001) was significantly different from zero and negatively correlated (r=-0.46, p < 0.05) between siblings. None of the asymmetries was affected by sex, orthodontic treatment or age. CONCLUSIONS: The palate illustrates neither directional asymmetry nor antisymmetry, indicating that most people's palates are symmetric. However, the significant fluctuating asymmetry suggests that some subject has considerable asymmetry but is not influenced by sex, orthodontic treatment, age, and genetics. The proposed digital method is a reliable and non-invasive tool that could facilitate achieving a more symmetrical structure during orthodontic and aesthetic rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicatrial.gov registration number is NCT05349942 (27/04/2022).

Reproducibility of the digital palate in forensic investigations: a two-year retrospective cohort study on twins.

OBJECTIVES: The palatal scans of the same individuals were compared after two years to assess forensic reproducibility. The effect of orthodontic treatment, the comparison area and the digitization approach were investigated. METHODS: The palate was scanned three times in 20 pairs of monozygotic twins with an intraoral scanner (IOS), to assess repeatability. The same subjects were re-scanned two years later, with two different IOSs. An elastic impression and a plaster model were also made and scanned with a laboratory scanner (indirect digitization). Mean absolute distance between scans was compared after best-fit alignment. Scans from the two sessions were compared to evaluate the combined effect of aging, orthodontic treatment and different digitization methods (forensic reproducibility). Additionally, the scans of different digitization methods from the second session were compared (technical reproducibility). The between-siblings difference was compared in the two sessions, to evaluate the effect of aging on palatal morphology. RESULTS: The anterior palatal area showed significantly better repeatability and forensic reproducibility than the whole palate (p < 0.001), but orthodontic treatment had no effect. Indirect digitization produced lower forensic and technical reproducibility than IOSs. For IOSs, repeatability (22 µm) was significantly (p < 0.001) better than either forensic (75-77 µm) or technical reproducibility (37 µm). No significant changes were observed from the first to the second session in the between-sibling comparison. The closest between-sibling value (239 µm) considerably exceeded the highest forensic reproducibility value (141 µm). CONCLUSIONS: Reproducibility is acceptable between the different IOSs, even after two years, but is poor between IOS and indirect digitization. The anterior palate is relatively stable in young adults. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Intraoral scanning of the anterior palatal area has superior reproducibility, regardless of the IOS brand. Therefore, the IOS method could be suitable for identifying humans through anterior palatal morphology. However, the digitization of elastic impressions or plaster models had low reproducibility, preventing their application for forensic purposes.

In vitro comparison of five desktop scanners and an industrial scanner in the evaluation of an intraoral scanner accuracy.

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to compare the precision of ATOS industrial, 3ShapeE4, MeditT710, CeramillMap400, CSNeo, PlanScanLab desktop, and Mediti700 intraoral scanners. The second aim was to compare the trueness of Mediti700 assessed by ATOS and desktop scanners. METHODS: Four plastic dentate models with 7-12 abutments prepared for complete arch fixed dentures were scanned by all scanners three times. Scans were segmented to retain only the abutments. The precision and trueness were calculated by superimposing scans with the best-fit algorithm. The mean absolute distance was calculated between the scan surfaces. The precision was calculated based on the 12 repeats. Trueness was evaluated by superimposing the desktop and IOS scans to the industrial scans. IOS was also aligned with the two most accurate desktop scanners. RESULTS: The precision of 3ShapeE4 and MeditT710 (3-4µm) was only slightly lower than that of ATOS (1.7µm, p<0.001) and significantly higher than CeramillMap400, CSNeo, and PlanScanLab (6-10 µm, p<0.001). The trueness was the highest for the 3Shape E4 (12-13 µm) and Medit T710 (13-16 µm) without significant difference. They were significantly better than CeramillMap400, CSNeo, and PlanScanLab (22-31µm, p<0.001). Accordingly, the Mediti700 trueness was evaluated by ATOS, 3ShapeE4, and MeditT710. The three trueness was not significantly different; ATOS (23-26 µm), 3Shape E4 (22-25 µm), and Medit T710 (20-23 µm). CONCLUSIONS: All desktop scanners had the acceptable accuracy required for a complete arch-fixed prosthesis. The 3Shape E4 and the Medit T710 might be used as reference scanners for studying IOS accuracy. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: 3ShapeE4, MeditT710, CeramillMap400, CSNeo, PlanScanLab laboratory, and Mediti700 intraoral scanners can be used for the prosthetic workflow in a complete arch. 3ShapeE4 and the MeditT710 could be used to test the accuracy of various phases of a laboratory workflow, replacing the industrial scanners.

The discriminative potential of palatal geometric analysis for sex discrimination and human identification.

Previous 3D superimposition studies of digital scans of the human palate, using geometric and surface morphology comparisons, have shown its usefulness in assisting in the identification process, including its ability to distinguish identical twins. This study aimed to evaluate the discriminative potential when only simple geometric analysis is used. Its aim is not only to determine if geometric comparison alone is sufficient not only to assist in identification but if it supports the hypothesis of assisting in sex discrimination when no other comparative data is available. The palates of 64 monozygotic (M.Z.T.) and 39 dizygotic (D.Z.T.) twins were digitized three times using a scanner. Digital smoothing was used to remove the rugae, and palatal height, depth, and width were measured. The study confirmed that the smoothing function had little effect on the discriminatory function since the Mean Absolute Distance (MAD) between M.Z.T. (0.430 ± 0.018 mm versus 0.425 ± 0.022 mm p = 0.061) or D.Z.T. (0.621 ± 0.058 mm versus 0.586 ± 0.053 mm, p = 0.284) scans show little change. By combining the height, depth, and width into a discriminative function, the sex correctly correlated 83.9% of the time, identity by 91.2% sensitivity, and twining by 68.5%. The difference in the 3D palatal model between twin siblings is primarily due to palate geometrics. Since geometric comparison requires far less computation time, geometric comparison alone can be used as an adjunct metric for limiting the possible matches in a dental 3D database in determining both sex and identity, especially if no other evidence is available.

Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The intraoral scanning of the edentulous arch might be challenging for an inexperienced operator because of the large mucosal area and the use of scan bodies. PURPOSE: The purpose of this ex vivo study was to compare the trueness of 5 intraoral scanners in replicating implant scan bodies and soft tissues in an edentulous maxilla and to investigate the effects of operator experience. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The maxilla was resected from a fresh cadaver, 5 implants placed, and a reference scan made. Eight scans were made by experienced operators and 8 by an inexperienced operator with each scanner (iTero Element 2, Medit i500, Primescan, TRIOS 3, TRIOS 4). The implant platform deviation was measured after complete surface alignment and after scan body alignment. Deviation data were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model (α=.05). RESULTS: After complete surface alignment, the mean ±standard deviation implant platform deviation was higher for the inexperienced operator (421 ±25 µm) than for experienced ones (191 ±12 µm, P<.001) for all scanners. After scan body alignment, no significant differences were found between operators for Element 2, Primescan, and TRIOS 3. The experienced operators produced a lower deviation for TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 µm versus 54 ±3.1 µm, P<.001), but higher deviation for i500 (68 ±4.1 µm versus 57 ±3.6 µm, P<.05). The scanner ranking was Element 2 (63 ±4.1 µm), i500 (57 ±3.6 µm, P=.443), TRIOS 4 (54 ±3.1 µm, P=.591), TRIOS 3 (40 ±3.1 µm, P<.01), Primescan (27 ±1.6 µm, P<.001) for the inexperienced operator and i500 (68 ±4.1 µm), Element 2 (58 ±4.0 µm, P=.141), TRIOS 3 (41 ±2.8 µm, P<.001), TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 µm, P=.205), Primescan (28 ±1.8 µm, P=.141) for the experienced operators. CONCLUSIONS: Mucosal alignment greatly overestimated the platform deviation. The intraoral scanners showed different trueness during the complete-arch implant scanning. The operator experience improved the trueness of the edentulous mucosa but not implant platform deviation.

Application of intraoral scanner to identify monozygotic twins.

BACKGROUND: DNA base identification is a proper and high specificity method. However, identification could be challenged in a situation where there is no database or the DNA sequence is almost identical, as in the case of monozygotic (MZ) twins. The aim of this study was to introduce a novel forensic method for distinguishing between almost identical MZ twins by means of an intraoral scanner using the 3D digital pattern of the human palate. METHODS: The palatal area of 64 MZ twins and 33 same-sex dizygotic (DZ) twins (DZSS) and seven opposite-sex dizygotic twins (DZOS) were scanned three times with an intraoral scanner. From the scanned data, an STL file was created and exported into the GOM Inspect® inspection software. All scans within a twin pair were superimposed on each other. The average deviation between scans of the same subject (intra-subject deviation, ISD) and between scans of the two siblings within a twin pair (intra-twin deviation, ITD) was measured. One-sided tolerance interval covering 99% of the population with 99% confidence was calculated for the ISD (upper limit) and the ITD (lower limit). RESULTS: The mean ISD of the palatal scan was 35.3 µm ± 0.78 µm. The calculated upper tolerance limit was 95 µm. The mean ITD of MZ twins (406 µm ± 15 µm) was significantly (p < 0.001) higher than the ISD, and it was significantly lower than the ITD of DZSS twins (594 µm ± 53 µm, p < 0.01) and the ITD of DZOS twins (853 µm ± 202 µm, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The reproducibility of palatal intraoral scans proved to be excellent. The morphology of the palate shows differences between members of MZ twins despite their almost identical DNA, indicating that this method could be useful in forensic odontology.

Marginal and internal fit of full ceramic crowns milled using CADCAM systems on cadaver full arch scans.

BACKGROUND: Chairside systems are becoming more popular for fabricating full-ceramic single restorations, but there is very little knowledge about the effect of the entire workflow process on restoration fit. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) and the full internal fit (FULL) of all-ceramic crowns made by two chairside systems, Planmeca FIT and CEREC, with detailed and standard mill settings. METHODS: One upper molar was prepared for an all-ceramic crown in human cadaver maxilla. Full-arch scans were made by Emerald or Omnicam four times each. Twenty-four e.max crowns were designed and milled by the Planmill 30s or 40s or CEREC MCXL mills with either detailed or standard settings. The cadaver tooth was extracted, and each crown was fixed on it and scanned by a high-resolution microCT scanner. The AMD and FULL were measured digitally in mesio-distal and bucco-lingual 2D slices. The actual and predicted times of the milling were also registered. RESULTS: No differences were observed between detailed or standard settings in either system. The AMD was significantly higher with CEREC (132 ± 12 µm) than with either Planmill 30s (71 ± 6.9 µm) or 40s (78 ± 7.7 µm). In standard mode, the FULL was significantly higher with CEREC (224 ± 9.6 µm) than with either Planmill 30s (169 ± 8.1 µm) or 40s (178 ± 8.5 µm). There was no difference between actual and predicted time with the two Planmeca models, but with CEREC, the actual time was significantly higher than the predicted time. The 30s had significantly higher actual and predicted times compared to all other models. Across all models, the average milling time was 7.2 min less in standard mode than in detailed mode. CONCLUSIONS: All fit parameters were in an acceptable range. No differences in fit between Planmeca models suggest no effect of spindle number on accuracy. The detailed setting has no improvement in the marginal or internal fit of the restoration, yet it increases milling time.

Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method.

BACKGROUNDS: Intraoral scanner (IOS) accuracy is commonly evaluated using full-arch surface comparison, which fails to take into consideration the starting position of the scanning (scan origin). Previously a novel method was developed, which takes into account the scan origin and calculates the deviation of predefined identical points between references and test models. This method may reveal the error caused by stitching individual images during intraoral scan. This study aimed to validate the novel method by comparing the trueness of seven IOSs (Element 1, Element 2, Emerald, Omnicam, Planscan, Trios 3, CS 3600) to a physical impression digitized by laboratory scanner which lacks linear stitching problems. METHODS: Digital test models of a dentate human cadaver maxilla were made by IOSs and by laboratory scanner after polyvinylsiloxane impression. All scans started on the occlusal surface of the tooth #15 (universal notation, scan origin) and finished at tooth #2. The reference model and test models were superimposed at the scan origin in GOM Inspect software. Deviations were measured between identical points on three different axes, and the complex 3D deviation was calculated. The effect of scanners, tooth, and axis was statistically analyzed by the generalized linear mixed model. RESULTS: The deviation gradually increased as the distance from scan origin increased for the IOSs but not for the physical impression. The highest deviation occurred mostly at the apico-coronal axis for the IOSs. The mean deviation of the physical impression (53 ± 2 µm) was not significantly different from the Trios 3 (156 ± 8 µm) and CS 3600 (365 ± 29 µm), but it was significantly lower than the values of Element 1 (531 ± 26 µm), Element 2 (246 ± 11 µm), Emerald (317 ± 13 µm), Omnicam (174 ± 11 µm), Planscan (903 ± 49 µm). CONCLUSIONS: The physical impression was superior compared to the IOSs on dentate full-arch of human cadaver. The novel method could reveal the stitching error of IOSs, which may partly be caused by the difficulties in depth measurement.

A novel method for complex three-dimensional evaluation of intraoral scanner accuracy.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare two existing methods and one novel method for measuring the distortion of three-dimensional (3D) models created with complete-arch digital impressions, and to assess the accuracy of different scan patterns using these methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Maxillary and mandibular models were imaged with the PlanScan intraoral scanner using four different scan patterns. Accuracy and distortion were assessed by comparing the master scans with the intraoral scans using the following three methods: 1) Mean surface deviation was measured after complete arch superimposition; 2) 28 points were selected identically on the experimental and on the master reference models, and the deviation between identical points was assessed after superimposition over the complete arch; 3) In the case of the novel technique, the superimposition was made only at the scanning origin, and after that the 28 points were compared. RESULTS: Significant differences were found between the three different methods, regardless of the arch and pattern. The overall mean deviation between identical points when the models were aligned at the scanning origin was the highest, and the mean deviation between the non-identical values was the lowest. The novel method revealed local tooth-wise differences between the scan patterns as well as a pattern of amplified model error extending away from the scan origin. CONCLUSIONS: The novel method better detects the cumulative deviation of stitching errors in complete arch intraoral scans and is suitable to investigate the effect of scanning pattern in a very sensitive manner.