We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparison of dental measurements between conventional plaster models, digital models obtained by impression scanning and plaster model scanning.
International Orthodontics 2019 March
OBJECTIVE: Comparison of dental measurements between conventional plaster models, digital models obtained by impression scanning and plaster model scanning.
PURPOSE: To evaluate and to compare the accuracy and reliability of tooth size, arch width and Bolton tooth size discrepancy measurements on 3 Dimensional (3D) digital models obtained by plaster dental model scanning, dental impression scanning and conventional plaster models.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study was carried out on the maxillary and mandibular dental models of 25 patients with Angle Class I molar relationship and minimal crowding. Mesio-distal dimensions of the teeth, intercanine and intermolar arch width, and Bolton tooth size discrepancy measurements were calculated by conventional methods on plaster models, digital methods and on 3D models obtained from plaster model scanning and impression scanning. All measurements were repeated after three weeks for each of the investigated methods. Reliability of measurements was evaluated by Dahlberg formula and Pearson Correlation Coefficient. Comparisons of dental measurements between three methods were achieved with ANOVA Test.
RESULTS: The repeated measurements were highly correlated for all methods. Method error was found within clinically acceptable limits. There was no significant difference between dental measurements on plaster dental models, digital models obtained from plaster dental model scanning and dental impression scanning. Results showed the methods being highly reliable and accurate for tooth size, arch width and Bolton analysis at total and anterior proportion calculation.
CONCLUSION: Digital measurements of tooth size, arch width and Bolton tooth size discrepancy on digital models obtained from plaster dental model scanning and dental impression scanning showed high accuracy and reliability. There was no significant difference between the three methods for dental measurements.
PURPOSE: To evaluate and to compare the accuracy and reliability of tooth size, arch width and Bolton tooth size discrepancy measurements on 3 Dimensional (3D) digital models obtained by plaster dental model scanning, dental impression scanning and conventional plaster models.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study was carried out on the maxillary and mandibular dental models of 25 patients with Angle Class I molar relationship and minimal crowding. Mesio-distal dimensions of the teeth, intercanine and intermolar arch width, and Bolton tooth size discrepancy measurements were calculated by conventional methods on plaster models, digital methods and on 3D models obtained from plaster model scanning and impression scanning. All measurements were repeated after three weeks for each of the investigated methods. Reliability of measurements was evaluated by Dahlberg formula and Pearson Correlation Coefficient. Comparisons of dental measurements between three methods were achieved with ANOVA Test.
RESULTS: The repeated measurements were highly correlated for all methods. Method error was found within clinically acceptable limits. There was no significant difference between dental measurements on plaster dental models, digital models obtained from plaster dental model scanning and dental impression scanning. Results showed the methods being highly reliable and accurate for tooth size, arch width and Bolton analysis at total and anterior proportion calculation.
CONCLUSION: Digital measurements of tooth size, arch width and Bolton tooth size discrepancy on digital models obtained from plaster dental model scanning and dental impression scanning showed high accuracy and reliability. There was no significant difference between the three methods for dental measurements.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app