Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to plaster models and cone-beam computed tomography

Angle Orthodontist

Volumn 84, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 443-450

  Kim, Jooseong ^a   Heo, Giseon ^a   Lagravère, Manuel O ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cone beam computed tomography; Digital models; Plaster models

Indexed keywords

ANATOMIC LANDMARK; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; CEPHALOMETRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DENTAL PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC USE; HUMAN; LASER; MANDIBLE; MAXILLA; MOLAR TOOTH; PREMOLAR TOOTH; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TOOTH ARCH;

ANATOMIC LANDMARKS; BICUSPID; CEPHALOMETRY; CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DENTAL ARCH; DENTAL MODELS; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; LASERS; MANDIBLE; MAXILLA; MOLAR;

EID: 84900456452     PISSN: 00033219     EISSN: 19457103     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2319/051213-365.1     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. 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.e1-4; discussion 16.
2. Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW. Validity, reliability and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study casts: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129:794-803. (Pubitemid 43850207)
3. Quimby ML, Vig KWL, Rashid RG, Firestone AR. The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computerbased digital models. Angle Orthod. 2004;74:298-303. (Pubitemid 38951204)
4. Whetten JL, Willamson PC, Heo G, Varnhagen C, Major PW. Variations in orthodontic treatment planning decisions of Class II patients between virtual 3-dimensional models and traditional plaster study models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130:485-491. (Pubitemid 44512095)
5. Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R, Zhurov Al. A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod. 2008;35:191-201.
6. Mah JK, Huang JC, Choo H. Practical applications of conebeam computed tomography in orthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010;141(suppl 3):7S-13S.
7. Lagravè re MO, Carey J, Toogood RW, Major PW. Threedimensional accuracy of measurements made with software on cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:112-116.
8. Kapila S, Conley RS, Harrell WE Jr. The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40:24-34.
9. Hirogaki Y, Sohmura T, Satoh H, Takahashi J, Takada K. Complete 3-D reconstruction of dental cast shape using perceptual grouping. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2001;20: 1093-1101. (Pubitemid 33777726)
10. Luu NS, Nikolcheva LG, Retrouvey JM, et al. Linear measurements using virtual study models. Angle Orthod. 2012;82:1098-1106.
11. El-Zanaty HM, El-Beialy AR, Abou El-Ezz AM, Attia KH, El- Bialy AR, Mostafa YA. Three-dimensional dental measurements: an alternative to plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137:259-265.
12. Naidu D, Scott J, Ong D, Ho CT. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of three methods used to measure toothwidths for Bolton analyses. Aust Orthod J. 2009;25:97-103.
13. Watanabe-Kanno GA, Abraã J, Miasiro Junior H, Sa'nchez- Ayala A, Lagravè re MO. Reproducibility, reliability and validity of measurements obtained from Cecile3 digital models. Braz Oral Res. 2009;23:288-295.
14. Tarazona B, Llamas JM, Cibrian R, Gandia JL, Paredes V. A comparison between dental measurements taken from CBCT models and those taken from a Digital Method. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35:1-6.
15. Kau CH, Littlefield J, Rainy N, Nguyen JT, Creed B. Evaluation of CBCT digital models and traditional models using the Little's Index. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:435-439.