Abstract
BackgroundThis study evaluated the reliability and validity of one extraoral [Ortho Insight 3D™ (Motionview Software, Hixson, TN/USA)] and two intraoral [ITero™ (Align Technologies, San Jose, CA/USA) and Lythos™ (Ormco Corp., Orange, CA/USA)] scanners.MethodsFifteen dry human mandibles were scanned twice with each of the scanners, and digital models were generated. Five measurements were made on the dry mandibles and on each of the generated models, including intermolar width, intercanine width, posterior arch length, premolar crown diameter, and canine height. Systematic and random errors were evaluated based on replicate analyses. Differences were assessed using paired Student’s t tests.ResultsReplicate analyses showed statistically significant systematic errors for only one measure (intermolar width measured from Ortho Insight 3D scans). Measurements taken from all three scanners were highly reliable, with intraclass correlations ranging from .926 to .999. Method errors were all less than 0.25 mm (averaged ≈0.12 mm). Posterior arch length and canine height were significantly smaller when measured on the Ortho Insight 3D scans than when measured on the dry mandibles and significantly smaller than when measured from the ITero and Lythos models.ConclusionsWhile all three scanners produced reliable measures, Ortho Insight 3D systematically underestimated arch length and canine height.
Highlights
This study evaluated the reliability and validity of one extraoral [Ortho Insight 3DTM (Motionview Software, Hixson, TN/USA)] and two intraoral [ITeroTM (Align Technologies, San Jose, CA/USA) and LythosTM (Ormco Corp., Orange, CA/USA)] scanners
Plaster models are costly, both in terms of the time required for the impressions, model fabrication, and model storage
A previous study evaluating Ortho Insight 3D showed similar Interclass correlations (ICC) (95–96 %), which were higher than the ICCs associated with digital models generated with emodel system (GeoDigm, Chanhassen, Minn) and cone-beam computerized tomography [23]
Summary
This study evaluated the reliability and validity of one extraoral [Ortho Insight 3DTM (Motionview Software, Hixson, TN/USA)] and two intraoral [ITeroTM (Align Technologies, San Jose, CA/USA) and LythosTM (Ormco Corp., Orange, CA/USA)] scanners. Plaster models that have been traditionally used in orthodontics for evaluating patients’ occlusal status have several limitations. They are subject to physical and chemical damage and they wear when repeatedly measured. Plaster models are costly, both in terms of the time required for the impressions, model fabrication, and model storage. To solve these problems, digital models were introduced in the late 1990s. OrthoCADTM was the first company to introduce digital models They allowed orthodontists to store casts electronically, eliminate impressions, and minimize many of the limitations associated with plaster models [3]. By 2014, digital models were being used for diagnostic purposes in 55 % of Pacific orthodontic practices and 21 % of Northeast practices [4]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
