Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences
Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences Login  | Users Online: 160  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
    Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions | Online submission




 
 Table of Contents  
DENTAL SCIENCE - ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 465-469  

Digital model as an alternative to plaster model in assessment of space analysis


Department of Orthodontics, JKK Nattraja Dental College, Komarapalayam, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Submission28-Apr-2015
Date of Decision28-Apr-2015
Date of Acceptance22-May-2015
Date of Web Publication1-Sep-2015

Correspondence Address:
Dr. A Anand Kumar
Department of Orthodontics, JKK Nattraja Dental College, Komarapalayam, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0975-7406.163506

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Introduction: Digital three-dimensional models are widely used for orthodontic diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to appraise the accuracy of digital models obtained from computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for tooth-width measurements and the Bolton analysis. Materials and Methods: Digital models (CAD/CAM, CBCT) and plaster model were made for each of 50 subjects. Tooth-width measurements on the digital models (CAD/CAM, CBCT) were compared with those on the corresponding plaster models. The anterior and overall Bolton ratios were calculated for each participant and for each method. The paired t-test was applied to determine the validity. Results: Tooth-width measurements, anterior, and overall Bolton ratio of digital models of CAD/CAM and CBCT did not differ significantly from those on the plaster models. Conclusion: Hence, both CBCT and CAD/CAM are trustable and promising technique that can replace plaster models due to its overwhelming advantages.

Keywords: Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing, cone-beam computed tomography, Bolton′s ratio, digital models


How to cite this article:
Kumar A A, Phillip A, Kumar S, Rawat A, Priya S, Kumaran V. Digital model as an alternative to plaster model in assessment of space analysis. J Pharm Bioall Sci 2015;7, Suppl S2:465-9

How to cite this URL:
Kumar A A, Phillip A, Kumar S, Rawat A, Priya S, Kumaran V. Digital model as an alternative to plaster model in assessment of space analysis. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2015 [cited 2019 Aug 24];7, Suppl S2:465-9. Available from: http://www.jpbsonline.org/text.asp?2015/7/6/465/163506

The classical orthodontic patient documentation is composed of a lateral head film, orthopantomogram, facial and dental photography, and plaster cast. Orthodontic models document the initial conditions, treatment progress, and the final treatment result, and also use these models to present their treatment results to fellow workers and patients for the purposes of education, evaluation, and systematic investigation.

Study models are a reliable and popular form of diagnostic record. Since they are a dimensionally accurate representation of the dentition, a number of measurements and analysis such as tooth size-arch length discrepancy and prediction of permanent tooth size can be obtained from plaster study models.

Digital models, on the other hand, alleviate many of the obstacles encountered with plaster models. They are not subjected to physical impairment and do not produce any dust. They also require comparatively negligible storage space. Retrieval was quick and efficient, it also an excellent tool for patient education.

Digital models can be created by two methods, direct and indirect methods. [1] The direct method for the creation of virtual models are either the direct scan of the dentition with an intraoral scanner using structured light or radiographic data such as cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), magnetic resonance for imaging, computed tomography. The virtual dental models derived from CBCT have radiographic data. An indirect method as the name implies, requires additional steps, such as impression and pouring of the models in plaster, before it is captured into a digital format. The scanning of an impression or plaster cast can be done by a laser, structured light or even radiographic methods such as OrthoCAD, computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM).

The Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scanners were introduced in the late 1990s. [2] Since then, there has been an enormous interest in this new imaging acquisition technique that utilizes a volumetric scanning machine. This technology was based on a cone-shaped X-ray beam directed at a flat two-dimensional (2D) detector. As both rotate around the patient's head, a series of 2D images were generated. The software then reconstructs the images into Three-dimensional (3D) data set using a specialized algorithm. [3] As the digital models are becoming common, research needs to be done to evaluate its accuracy in measuring the tooth size analysis. [4],[5] The purpose of this study was to compare the linear measurements of the digital model obtained from cone beam computerized images and CAD/CAM with plaster models measurements.


   Materials and Methods Top


The present study comprised of a sample of 50 adults all aged above 18 years. This study was performed after ethical committee clearance.

Criteria for selection of patients:

  • Complete permanent dentition from first molar to first molar in both upper and lower arches
  • Participant should not be under orthodontic treatment
  • No severe crowding in the dentition.


Source of data

The study was performed on the basis of the patients study models and digital models using CAD/CAM and CBCT. The digital and manual measurements were made using Bolton's analysis. [6]

Methods

Materials used for plaster models and digital models.

  • For plaster models:
    • Impression of upper and lower arch made with alginate (topic alginate)
    • The models were made using orthodontic stone class III (orthokal)
  • For digital models:
    • 3 Shape scanner D 800 and 3 Shape software (CAD/CAM)
    • Sirona Orthophos XG machine and Galileo's viewer software (CBCT).


Plaster models

One set of alginate impressions of each participant were taken, and the impression were poured immediately to obtain the conventional plaster models. The alginate used for the plaster models was tropicalgin. The plaster material used was orthokal.

Digital models

Digital models were obtained by CBCT (direct scanning) and CAD/CAM (indirect scanning).

Cone-beam computed tomographic technique

The Sirona Galileos Orthophos XG was the CBCT device used with voxel size between 0.15 mm and 0.30 mm. The image reconstruction time was approximately 4.5 min. Galileos viewer software was used to analyze 50 CBCT scans taken by a Galileo's cone beam scanner (Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) with a field of view of 15 cm 3 × 15 cm 3 × 15 cm 3 and a voxel resolving power of 0.125 mm.

Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technique

The cast was digitalized by scanning the cast in 3 Shape scanner D800, with image reconstruction time of approximately 3 min and digital models obtained were measured with 3 Shape software.

Measurement

As the accuracy and consistency were essential for measuring, it was invariably carried away by the same operator. Tooth widths on the plaster models were measured with a digital calliper (aerospace). As described by Hunter and Priest in 1960, the greatest mesiodistal diameter was taken from the anatomic mesial contact point to the anatomical distal contact point of each tooth measured parallel to the occlusal plane. Measurements were recorded to nearest 0.01mm. Tooth width was measured in CBCT by Sirona Galileos software (Sirona The Dental Company, U.S.A) and in CAD/CAM by 3 Shape software.

The linear measurements (mesiodistal width), anterior Bolton and overall Bolton ratios were calculated for each set of models. Measurements made on the plaster models were considered the gold standard. The differences in tooth-width measurements, anterior Bolton ratio, and overall Bolton ratio between the digital models (CAD/CAM and CBCT) and the corresponding plaster models were calculated to assess the error of the method and to evaluate the validity. [6]


   Results Top


P value was found using one-way ANOVA between CBCT and plaster model and between CAD/CAM and plaster models. The level of significance was P < 0.05. There was no statistically significant difference between CBCT and plaster model and also between CAD/CAM and plaster model [Table 1] and [Table 2], [Graphs 1 and 2].
Table 1: The mean of the anterior Bolton ratio calculated from the measurements obtained from CBCT, CAD/CAM, and plaster models

Click here to view
Table 2: The mean of overall Bolton ratio calculated from measurements obtained from CBCT, CAD/CAM, and plaster models

Click here to view






Values of CAD/CAM, CBCT are similar to the control group (plaster models).


   Discussion Top


Diagnosis and treatment planning is the key to orthodontics. It is a progressive field that has embraced new technologies. Orthodontic study models are the corner stone of diagnosis and treatment planning. The need to retain dental casts for future reference has created storage problem for orthodontist. However digital models are gaining popularity due to their advantage over plaster models in storage, retrieving and sharing of information. [7]

Digital imaging technology in the dental field has emerged as one of the most important aspects of diagnosing and treating oral diseases, especially since the advent of three-dimensional techniques. In recent years, the use of CAD/CAM systems has become popular in dentistry. CAD/CAM is the process by which a model is scanned, and the data is then used to generate the coping pattern, which in turn is used for manufacturing digital models. [8] The CAD/CAM systems that are used in dental applications generally consist of two modules: (1) A scanner, which scans a solid model and converts the model into digital information, (2) a design software package which is utilized to design and modify the digital models. This study was done to find the accuracy of measurements made on digital models using CBCT and CAD/CAM and compared it with plaster model measurements made manually.

According to surveys done by Tarazona et al. [9] the analysis of Bolton index continues to be the most commonly used arch width index in orthodontic diagnosis. Hence, Bolton's index was used in this study to evaluate digital measurements taken from CBCT and CAD/CAM. These digital measurements were compared with the measurements taken from golden standard plaster models using a digital calliper. According to Jennifer Asquith et al.[10] caliper measurements were regarded as the golden standard against which other measurement techniques were compared.Shellhart et alcalculated the Bolton's analysis values using vernier calipers and needlepoint divider. They found that vernier caliper was slightly more reliable than needle point dividers. In this study instead of vernier caliper, digital vernier caliper was used to eliminate the possibility of parallelex error. [11]

In the present study, 50 patients were selected all aged above 18 years. One set of alginate impressions was made for each patient, and the plaster models were poured immediately. [1] Digital models were obtained by both direct scanning of patients using CBCT and indirect scanning of plaster models using CAD/CAM. This study was done since no other previous literature compared CAD/CAM and CBCT with plaster models.

Linear measurements of each tooth (mesiodistal width) were calculated using CBCT, CAD/CAM, and digital caliper. As described by Hunter and Priest in 1960, the greatest mesiodistal diameter was taken from the anatomical mesial contact point to the distal contact point of each tooth measured parallel to the occlusal plane. [12] In plaster model digital calliper (aerospace) was applied to measure the mesiodistal width of the tooth. Aerospace digital calliper has two needle pointers which when placed at mesial, and distal contact point automatically showed the width digitally. In CBCT images, Galileo's viewer software is used to measure the mesiodistal width in which cursor is used to mark the mesial and distal contact point after which the width will be displayed automatically. CAD/CAM 3 Shape D800 scanner was used to scan the plaster model, and digitalization is done with S-Shape software. Cursor was used to mark the mesial and distal contact points after which width will be displayed automatically.

Mesiodistal width, overall and anterior ratio Bolton's analysis of all teeth from first molar to first molar in both arches were calculated for all 50 patients by all three methods CBCT, CAD/CAM, and digital caliper. Mean value and standard deviation of mesiodistal width, overall and anterior Bolton's ratio of all 50 patients were separately measured for CBCT, CAD/CAM and plaster models. The mean obtained by CBCT, was compared with the mean value of the digital calliper measurement. In the same way, mean obtained by CAD/CAM was compared with the mean value of the digital calliper measurement. It was found that there was no significant difference between CBCT and CAD/CAM values when compared with plaster model values. Aaron j white et al. [1] analysed intra-arch and inter-arch measurements obtained from the digital models by scanning two impression materials using Cone Beam Computerised tomography. The study concluded that orthodontic models from CBCT scan of two impression materials were accurate representation of intra-arch relationship. But inter arch relationship was not accurate. So in this study the digital model was obtained either directly from the mouth or by scanning models. [13]

Study done by Stevens et al. [14] found that there was no significant difference when comparing the reliability tooth size measurements obtained from plaster and digital model. In another survey done by Michael's F. Leifert et al., [15] space analysis measurements taken were compared between plaster and digital models. The study found that there was no significant difference in measuring space analysis in digital models (OrthoCAD) and plaster models.

In the present study, the linear measurements and Bolton's analysis of CBCT digital models were similar with that of plaster model measurements. This is in agreement with the study done by Matthew G. Wiranto et al. [16] who reported that the tooth measurement of each tooth done on digital models (CBCT) did not differ significantly from those on the plaster models. The overall and anterior Bolton ratio from CBCT digital models differ significantly from the plaster model by P < 0.05. However, this difference never exceeded 1.5 mm, so it was viewed as clinically insignificant. There are no previous literatures to compare the linear measurements and Bolton's analysis of CAD/CAM digital models with that of plaster model measurements. [17] In the present study, when plaster models were compared with digital models (CAD/CAM), no significant difference were found for the linear measurements, as well as for the overall, and anterior Bolton's ratio.

Hence, both CBCT and CAD/CAM can be a viable replacement to plaster models in the upcoming years helping in easy storage, retrieval, and manipulation of models.


   Summary and Conclusion Top


  • There is no significant deviation was found in mean values of mesiodistal width of teeth measured by all these methods CAD/CAM, CBCT, and digital calliper
  • No significant deviation was found in anterior Bolton's ratio calculated by all these methods CAD/CAM, CBCT, and digital models
  • No significant deviation was found in overall Bolton's ratio calculated by all these methods CAD/CAM, CBCT, and digital models
  • Hence, both CBCT and CAD/CAM are a reliable and promising technique that can replace plaster models due to its overwhelming advantages.


Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflict of interest

There are no conflict of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Nakajima A, Murata M, Tanaka E, Arai Y, Fukase Y, Nishi Y, et al. Development of three-dimensional FE modeling system from the limited cone beam CT images for orthodontic tipping tooth movement. Dent Mater J 2007;26:882-91.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Ghoneima A, Allam E, Kula K, Windsor LJ. Three-dimensional imaging and software advances in orthodontics. Orthod Basic Asp Clin Considerations 2012;9:200-39.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Shelhart WC, Lange W, Kaplen AL, Kulemper GT. Reliability of Boltontooth size when applied to crowded dentition. Angle orthodontics 2005;65:327-334.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Mörmann WH. The evolution of the CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137 suppl:7S-13S.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Benz C, Schwarz P. How precise is the optical CEREC impression? [in German]. DtschZahnarztl Z 1991;46:632-634.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Bolton WA. Disharmony in tooth size and its relation to the analysis and treatment of malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1958;28:113-30.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Mayers M, Firestone AR, Rashid R, Vig KW. Comparison of peer assessment rating (PAR) index scores of plaster and computer-based digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:431-4.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Ye N, Jian F, Xue J, Wang S, Liao L, Huang W, Yang X, Zhou Y, Lai AW, Wang JLJ. Accuracy of in-vitro tooth volumetric measurements from cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142:879-887.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Tarazona B, Llamas JM, Cibrián R, Gandía JL, Paredes V. Evaluation of the validity of the Bolton Index using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012;17:e878-83.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Asquith J, Gillgrass T, Mossey P. Three-dimensional imaging of orthodontic models: A pilot study. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:517-22.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Zilberman O, Huggare JAV, Parikakis KA. Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual models. Angle Orthod 2003;73:301-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Hunter WS, Priest WR. Errors and discrepancies in measurement of tooth size. Journal of Dental Research 1960;39:405-14.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.
White AJ, Fallis DW, Vandewalle KS. Analysis of intra-arch and interarch measurements from digital models with 2 impression materials and a modeling process based on cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:456.e1-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW. 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 Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:794-803.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:16.e1-16.e4.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Nolthenius HET, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y. 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 Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:140-7.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Brown AA, Scarfe WC, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG. Linear accuracy of cone beam CT derived 3D images. Angle Orthod 2009;79:150-7.  Back to cited text no. 17
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]


This article has been cited by
1 Accuracy and reproducibility of dental measurements on tomographic digital models: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Jamille B Ferreira,Ilana O Christovam,David S Alencar,Andréa F J da Motta,Claudia T Mattos,Adriana Cury-Saramago
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2017; : 20160455
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Correlation and agreement of a digital and conventional method to measure arch parameters
Nes Nawi,Alizae Marny Mohamed,Murshida Marizan Nor,Nor Atika Ashar
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
    Summary and Conc...
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1480    
    Printed28    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded75    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal