Comparison and reproducibility of three methods for maxillary digital dental model registration in open bite patients.
Dental models
Three-dimensional imaging
open bite
Journal
Orthodontics & craniofacial research
ISSN: 1601-6343
Titre abrégé: Orthod Craniofac Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101144387
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2022
May 2022
Historique:
revised:
26
08
2021
received:
24
06
2021
accepted:
13
09
2021
pubmed:
21
9
2021
medline:
23
4
2022
entrez:
20
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare and assess the reproducibility of 3 methods for registration of maxillary digital dental models in patients with anterior open bite. Settings and sample population Digital dental models of 16 children with an anterior open bite in the mixed dentition were obtained before (T1) and after 12 months of treatment with bonded spurs (T2). Landmarks were placed on all T2 models and 3 registration methods (R1, R2 and R3) were independently performed by 2 observers. R1 was based on 10 landmarks placed on posterior teeth. R2 was based on 5 landmarks on the palate (2 anterior, 2 posterior and 1 central). R3 used regions of interest around the 5 palatal landmarks used in R2. The differences between the registration methods were calculated by comparing the mean differences and standard deviations between the corresponding x, y and z coordinates of 6 corresponding landmarks in the T2 registered models. Repeated measures analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni tests were used for comparisons (P < .05). The agreement between methods and the intra and interobserver reproducibility were assessed with Bland-Altman tests and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Comparisons of R2 with R3 methods showed greater agreement, mean differences ≤0.50 mm for all landmarks, than comparisons of R1 with R2, and R1 with R3, mean differences >0.50 mm for most of the y and z coordinates (P < .05). The R1 and R3 methods presented excellent intra and interobserver reproducibility and R2 method had moderate interobserver reproducibility. Longitudinal assessments of open bite treatment using digital dental models could consider the posterior teeth and/or the palate as references. The R1 and R3 methods showed adequate reproducibility and yield different quantitative results. The choice will depend on the posterior teeth changes and dental models' characteristics.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34543518
doi: 10.1111/ocr.12535
pmc: PMC8934310
mid: NIHMS1768668
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
269-279Subventions
Organisme : NIDCR NIH HHS
ID : R01 DE024450
Pays : United States
Organisme : Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
Organisme : Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
Informations de copyright
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Eur J Orthod. 2016 Aug;38(4):429-34
pubmed: 27266879
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Apr;135(4):480-5
pubmed: 19361734
Br J Orthod. 1977 Apr;4(2):53-64
pubmed: 273440
Eur J Orthod. 2017 Feb;39(1):31-42
pubmed: 26846264
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Jul;154(1):47-54
pubmed: 29957318
Eur J Orthod. 2017 Aug 01;39(4):365-370
pubmed: 28339627
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Feb;149(2):161-70
pubmed: 26827972
Korean J Orthod. 2015 Mar;45(2):82-8
pubmed: 25798414
Sci Rep. 2017 Jul 19;7(1):5838
pubmed: 28724930
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Eur J Orthod. 2018 Jul 27;40(4):364-371
pubmed: 29059287
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 May;119(5):482-8
pubmed: 11343019
J Orthod. 2017 Dec;44(4):268-276
pubmed: 28593812
Angle Orthod. 2008 Nov;78(6):967-76
pubmed: 18947269
Stomatologija. 2018;20(3):96-101
pubmed: 30531164
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 May;127(5):627-37
pubmed: 15877045
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Jun;151(6):1092-1106
pubmed: 28554455
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021 Aug;24(3):351-359
pubmed: 33200559
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Apr;149(4):533-42
pubmed: 27021458
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Jun;149(6):847-55
pubmed: 27241995
Angle Orthod. 2010 Jul;80(4):497-503
pubmed: 20482354
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2019 Aug;22(3):183-193
pubmed: 30844126
Korean J Orthod. 2012 Oct;42(5):235-41
pubmed: 23173116
Angle Orthod. 1990 Spring;60(1):17-24; discussion 25-6
pubmed: 2316899
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2017 May;20(2):79-84
pubmed: 28150411
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Jul;150(1):188-97
pubmed: 27364220
J Orofac Orthop. 2018 Jan;79(1):11-18
pubmed: 29134232
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Jun;153(6):771-785
pubmed: 29853235
Eur J Orthod. 2021 Apr 3;43(2):128-135
pubmed: 32296827
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Jan;133(1):81-6
pubmed: 18174076
Angle Orthod. 2009 May;79(3):447-53
pubmed: 19413387
Angle Orthod. 2017 Mar;87(2):215-222
pubmed: 27598906
Eur J Orthod. 2020 Nov 3;42(5):559-570
pubmed: 31742598