Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Digital model superimpositions: are different software algorithms equally accurate in quantifying linear tooth movements?
Adel, Samar M; Vaid, Nikhilesh R; El-Harouni, Nadia; Kassem, Hassan; Zaher, Abbas R.
Affiliation
  • Adel SM; Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Champollion Street, El Azarita, Alexandria, Egypt. orthosamar@gmail.com.
  • Vaid NR; Department of Orthodontics, Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha Insitute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Chennai, India.
  • El-Harouni N; Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Champollion Street, El Azarita, Alexandria, Egypt.
  • Kassem H; Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Champollion Street, El Azarita, Alexandria, Egypt.
  • Zaher AR; Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Champollion Street, El Azarita, Alexandria, Egypt.
BMC Oral Health ; 22(1): 103, 2022 03 31.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35361187
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the accuracy of three different 3D digital model registration software packages for linear tooth movement measurements, with reference to a 3D digital virtual setup (DS). METHODS: Twenty maxillary and mandibular pre-treatment scans of patients undergoing clear aligner therapy were used. Digital Setups were generated from pre-treatment scans using OrthoAnalyzer software. Both the pretreatment digital scans (T1) and Digital Setups (T2) were converted to STL files to be imported to the three studied software packages: Geomagic, OrthoAnalyzer and Compare. Linear changes in tooth positions were calculated for all the registered pairs. RESULTS: The change in tooth position was compared between the calculated tooth movement using each of the registration software packages versus the actual generated tooth movement from the Digital Setups. Continuous data was expressed as mean and standard deviation. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for agreements between Digital Simulation and each software was used. Intra and Inter-examiner reliabilities were also assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients. Significance of the obtained results was expressed at p ≤ 0.01. Geomagic software showed agreements > 0.90 for maxillary linear tooth movements and between 0.75 and 0.90 for mandibular measurements. OrthoAnalyzer software showed agreements between 0.50 and < 0.75 for maxillary and mandibular measurements. Compare software showed agreements > 0.90 for maxillary and mandibular linear tooth movements, indicating the best consistency. CONCLUSIONS: Compare and Geomagic software packages consistently showed maximum accuracy in measuring the amount of tooth movement in the maxillary arch compared to the reference standard. Compare software showed the highest agreements in the mandibular arch. None of the three studied software packages showed poor agreement with the Digital Setup across all tooth movement measurements. Buccolingual tooth movements showed the highest agreements amongst linear measurements.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Imaging, Three-Dimensional / Models, Dental Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: BMC Oral Health Journal subject: ODONTOLOGIA Year: 2022 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Egipto Country of publication: Reino Unido

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Imaging, Three-Dimensional / Models, Dental Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: BMC Oral Health Journal subject: ODONTOLOGIA Year: 2022 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Egipto Country of publication: Reino Unido