Cargando…
Digital model superimpositions: are different software algorithms equally accurate in quantifying linear tooth movements?
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8973572/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35361187 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02129-x |
_version_ | 1784680065945042944 |
---|---|
author | Adel, Samar M. Vaid, Nikhilesh R. El-Harouni, Nadia Kassem, Hassan Zaher, Abbas R. |
author_facet | Adel, Samar M. Vaid, Nikhilesh R. El-Harouni, Nadia Kassem, Hassan Zaher, Abbas R. |
author_sort | Adel, Samar M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8973572 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89735722022-04-02 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. BMC Oral Health Research 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. BioMed Central 2022-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC8973572/ /pubmed/35361187 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02129-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Adel, Samar M. Vaid, Nikhilesh R. El-Harouni, Nadia Kassem, Hassan Zaher, Abbas R. Digital model superimpositions: are different software algorithms equally accurate in quantifying linear tooth movements? |
title | Digital model superimpositions: are different software algorithms equally accurate in quantifying linear tooth movements? |
title_full | Digital model superimpositions: are different software algorithms equally accurate in quantifying linear tooth movements? |
title_fullStr | Digital model superimpositions: are different software algorithms equally accurate in quantifying linear tooth movements? |
title_full_unstemmed | Digital model superimpositions: are different software algorithms equally accurate in quantifying linear tooth movements? |
title_short | Digital model superimpositions: are different software algorithms equally accurate in quantifying linear tooth movements? |
title_sort | digital model superimpositions: are different software algorithms equally accurate in quantifying linear tooth movements? |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8973572/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35361187 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02129-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT adelsamarm digitalmodelsuperimpositionsaredifferentsoftwarealgorithmsequallyaccurateinquantifyinglineartoothmovements AT vaidnikhileshr digitalmodelsuperimpositionsaredifferentsoftwarealgorithmsequallyaccurateinquantifyinglineartoothmovements AT elharouninadia digitalmodelsuperimpositionsaredifferentsoftwarealgorithmsequallyaccurateinquantifyinglineartoothmovements AT kassemhassan digitalmodelsuperimpositionsaredifferentsoftwarealgorithmsequallyaccurateinquantifyinglineartoothmovements AT zaherabbasr digitalmodelsuperimpositionsaredifferentsoftwarealgorithmsequallyaccurateinquantifyinglineartoothmovements |