Evaluating Measurements: A Comparative Study of Digital and Plaster Models for Orthodontic Applications in Mixed Dentition
10.5933/JKAPD.2024.51.1.55
- Author:
Seo Young SHIN
1
;
Yong Kwon CHAE
;
Ko Eun LEE
;
Mi Sun KIM
;
Ok Hyung NAM
;
Hyo-seol LEE
;
Sung Chul CHOI
Author Information
1. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Kyung Hee University Dental Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:
Journal of Korean Academy of Pediatric Dentistry
2024;51(1):55-65
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
This study aimed to assess the accuracy of tooth widths, intermolar widths, and arch lengths acquired through two intraoral scanners, including iTero Element Plus Series (Align Technology, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and Trios 4 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), specifically on mixed dentition. A total of 30 subjects were divided into 2 groups, each undergoing both alginate impressions and intraoral scanning using either the iTero or Trios scanner. The plaster models were measured with a caliper, while the digital models were measured virtually. In the iTero group, all tooth width measurements exhibited differences compared to the plaster values, except for maxillary left lateral incisors (p = 0.179), mandibular right (p = 0.285), and left (p = 0.073) central incisors. The Trios group did not display significant differences in any of the tooth width measurements. Intermolar width comparisons for both groups indicated differences, except for mandibular primary canine to primary canine values (p = 0.426) in the iTero group. Regarding arch length, the mandibular anterior, maxillary right, and left arch lengths in the iTero group demonstrated larger caliper values than those of iTero. Conversely, in the Trios group, all parameters showed smaller caliper values, especially in upper anterior, maxillary right, mandibular right, and mandibular left arch lengths with significance (p = 0.027, 0.007, 0.003, and 0.047, respectively). Despite the differences between the two groups, digital models might be clinically suitable alternatives for plaster models. Pediatric dentists should carefully assess these differences, as a comprehensive evaluation would result in precise orthodontic treatment planning and favorable outcomes for young patients with mixed dentition.
