ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A plaster dental model is a patient's traditional three-dimensional (3D) record. If the dental crowns from a plaster model are separated and positioned in wax, this setup of the crowns can be used to simulate orthodontic treatment. The traditional way to make this dental setup requires significant time by the orthodontist and in the orthodontic lab. New developments in dentistry and orthodontics include the possibility of virtual setups. AIM: In this article, the differences between conventional setups with plaster models and virtual setups are discussed. METHODS: A clinical patient is described for whom two different setups were made and compared by model superimposition with Geomagic Qualify software. RESULTS: According to the literature and the results from this study, virtual setups and conventional setups with plaster models are equally accurate. CONCLUSION: Virtual setups present several advantages, e.g., digital storage, digital models cannot be damaged, the same model can undergo several treatment simulations, and communication between dental and surgical professionals and between dental professionals and patients is facilitated. Despite these advantages, considerable time and training are needed for dental professionals to master and adopt the general use of digital models and virtual setups in dentistry.
Subject(s)
Dental Casting Technique , Imaging, Three-Dimensional/methods , Models, Dental , Tooth/anatomy & histology , Tooth/diagnostic imaging , User-Computer Interface , Anatomic Landmarks/anatomy & histology , Anatomic Landmarks/diagnostic imaging , Cephalometry/methods , Computer Simulation , Computer-Aided Design , Humans , Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted/methods , Jaw/anatomy & histology , Jaw/diagnostic imaging , Models, Biological , Radiography, Dental/methods , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and Specificity , Technology Assessment, BiomedicalABSTRACT
A introdução de ferramentas 3D, como as TCFCs, fotografias 3D e modelos digitais, proporcionaram novas possibilidades na Odontologia. É possível planejar os casos clínicos digitalmente com maior agilidade, facilitando a comunicação entre profissionais e pacientes e sem a necessidade de armazenar documentos físicos. Este artigo objetiva apresentar e discutir alguns dos novos desenvolvimentos no planejamento digital em Ortodontia e cirurgia bucomaxilofacial.
The introduction of 3D resources, such as CBCTs, 3D photos and digital models, enabled new possibilities for Dentistry. It is possible to plan clinical cases digitally and faster, facilitating the communication between professionals and patient, and without the need of storing physical documents. This article aims to show and discuss some of the new developments of digital planning in Orthodontics and maxillofacial surgical treatment.
Subject(s)
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography , Imaging, Three-Dimensional , Orthodontics , Printing, Three-Dimensional , Computer-Aided Design , Technology, DentalABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine the reproducibility and accuracy of linear measurements on 2 types of dental models derived from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans: CBCT images, and Anatomodels (InVivoDental, San Jose, Calif); these were compared with digital models generated from dental impressions (Digimodels; Orthoproof, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands). The Digimodels were used as the reference standard. METHODS: The 3 types of digital models were made from 10 subjects. Four examiners repeated 37 linear tooth and arch measurements 10 times. Paired t tests and the intraclass correlation coefficient were performed to determine the reproducibility and accuracy of the measurements. RESULTS: The CBCT images showed significantly smaller intraclass correlation coefficient values and larger duplicate measurement errors compared with the corresponding values for Digimodels and Anatomodels. The average difference between measurements on CBCT images and Digimodels ranged from -0.4 to 1.65 mm, with limits of agreement values up to 1.3 mm for crown-width measurements. The average difference between Anatomodels and Digimodels ranged from -0.42 to 0.84 mm with limits of agreement values up to 1.65 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant differences between measurements on Digimodels and Anatomodels, and between Digimodels and CBCT images, were found. Although the mean differences might be clinically acceptable, the random errors were relatively large compared with corresponding measurements reported in the literature for both Anatomodels and CBCT images, and might be clinically important. Therefore, with the CBCT settings used in this study, measurements made directly on CBCT images and Anatomodels are not as accurate as measurements on Digimodels.
