Intraoral 3D scanning or dental impressions for the assessment of dental arch relationships in cleft care: Which is superior?

Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal

Volumn 53, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 568-577

  Chalmers, E V ^a   McIntyre, G T ^a   Wang, W ^b   Gillgrass, T ^c   Martin, C B ^a   Mossey, P A ^a  

^a DUNDEE DENTAL HOSPITAL AND SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^c GLASGOW DENTAL HOSPITAL AND SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Dental impression; Dental model; Digital impression; Outcome assessment; Patient preference

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANATOMIC MODEL; CHILD; CLEFT PALATE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONFERENCE PAPER; DENTAL IMPRESSION; DIGITAL IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGING SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; INTRARATER RELIABILITY; MALE; PARENTAL ATTITUDE; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT COMFORT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TIME; TOOTH ARCH; UNILATERAL CLEFT LIP; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; CLEFT LIP; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DENMARK; DENTAL PROCEDURE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRESCHOOL CHILD; REPRODUCIBILITY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; CLEFT LIP; CLEFT PALATE; DENMARK; DENTAL ARCH; DENTAL IMPRESSION TECHNIQUE; DENTAL MODELS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MALE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84988972676     PISSN: 10556656     EISSN: 15451569     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1597/15-036     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (36)

1. Ali SA, Mossey P, Gillgrass T. A study model based photographic method for assessment of surgical treatment outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Eur J Orthod. 2006;28:366-372.
2. Altalibi M, Saltaji H, Edwards R, Major P, Flores-Mir C. Indices to assess malocclusions in patients with cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35:772-782.
3. Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.
4. Asquith JA, McIntyre GT. Dental arch relationships on threedimensional digital study models and conventional plaster study models for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49:530-534.
5. Atack N, Hathorn I, Semb G, Dowell T, Sandy J. A new index for assessing surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects aged five: reproducibility and validity. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997;34:242-246.
6. Bland JM, Altman DG. Cronbach's alpha. BMJ. 1997;314:572.
7. Chawla O, Atack NE, Deacon SA, Leary SD, Ireland AJ, Sandy JR. Three-dimensional digital models for rating dental arch relation-ships in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013;50:182-186.
8. Dobbyn LM, Weir JT, Macfarlane TV, Mossey PA. Calibration of the modified Huddart and Bodenham scoring system against the GOSLON/5-year-olds' index for unilateral cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34:762-767.
9. Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011;14:1-16.
10. Fudalej P, Katsaros C, Bongaarts C, Dudkiewicz Z, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Dental arch relationship in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate following one-stage and three-stage surgical protocols. Clin Oral Investig. 2011;15:503-510.
11. Gray D, Mossey PA. Evaluation of a modified Huddart/Bodenham scoring system for assessment of maxillary arch constriction in unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27:507-511.
12. Grünheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146:673-682.
13. Huddart AG, Bodenham RS. The evaluation of arch form and occlusion in unilateral cleft palate subjects. Cleft Palate J. 1972;9:194-209.
14. Joffe L. OrthoCAD: digital models for a digital era. J Orthod. 2004;31:344-347.
15. Jones T, Al-Ghatam R, Atack N, Deacon S, Power R, Albery L, Ireland T, Sandy J. A review of outcome measures used in cleft care. J Orthod. 2014;41:128-140.
16. Kaplan RM. Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications, and Issues. Monterey, CA: Brooks, Cole; 1982.
17. Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb RB, Zhurov AI. A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod. 2008;35:191-201.
18. Kravitz ND, Groth C, Jones PE, Graham JW, Redmond WR. Intraoral digital scanners. J Clin Orthod. 2014;48:337-347.
19. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:111-115.
20. Leenarts CM, Bartzela TN, Bronkhorst EM, Semb G, Shaw WC, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Photographs of dental casts or digital models: rating dental arch relationships in bilateral cleft lip and palate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41:180-185.
21. Liao YF, Huang CS, Lin IF. Intraoral photographs for rating dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46:415-419.
22. Mars M, Plint DA, Houston WJ, Bergland O, Semb G. The Goslon Yardstick: a new system of assessing dental arch relationships in children with unilateral clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24:314-322.
23. McAuliffe NJ, Jones AP, Cumberbirch VC, Russell JI. The use of the 5-year-olds' index: comparison between study models and intraoral photographs. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010;48;526-531.
24. McGuinness NJ, Stephens CD. Storage of orthodontic study models in hospital units in the U.K. Brit J Orthod. 1992;19:227-232.
25. Morris T, Roberts C, Shaw WC. Incisal overjet as an outcome measure in unilateral cleft lip and palate management. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1994;31:142-145.
26. Mossey P, Little J, Munger R, Dixon M, Shaw W. Cleft lip and palate. Lancet. 2009;374:1773-1785.
27. Naidu D, Freer TJ. The evidence supporting methods of tooth width measurement: part I. Vernier calipers to stereophotogrammetry. Aust Orthod J. 2013b;29:159-163.
28. Naidu D, Freer TJ. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: a comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013a;144:304-310.
29. Nollet PJ, Katsaros C, van 't Hof MA, Semb G, Shaw WC, Kuijpers- Jagtman AM. Treatment outcome after two-stage palatal closure in unilateral cleft lip and palate: a comparison with Eurocleft. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42:512-516.
30. Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
31. Roberta T, Federico M, Federica B, Antonietta CM, Sergio B, Ugo C. Study of the potential cytotoxicity of dental impression materials. Toxicol In Vitro. 2003;17:657-662.
32. Servet D, Sultan O, Semb G. Comparative assessment of dental arch relationships using GOSLON Yardstick in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate using dental casts, two-dimensional photos, and three-dimensional Images. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49:347-351.
33. Turner SR, Thomas PW, Dowell T, Rumsey N, Sandy JR. Psychological outcomes amongst cleft patients and their families. Br J Plast Surg. 1997;50:1-9.
34. Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Tutein Nolthenius HE, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and conebeam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143:140-147.
35. World Health Organization. Global strategies to reduce the healthcare burden of craniofacial anomalies. Report of WHO meetings on International Collaborative Research on Craniofacial Anomalies. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
36. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:10.