Impact of the superimposition methods and the designated comparison area on accuracy analyses in dentate models.
Options
BORIS DOI
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
38521237
Description
OBJECTIVES
To measure the impact of superimposition methods and the designated comparison area on accuracy analyses of dentate models using an ISO-recommended 3-dimensional (3D) metrology-grade inspection software (Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems; Rock Hill, South Carolina; USA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A dentate maxillary typodont scanned with a desktop scanner (E4; 3 Shape; Copenhagen; Denmark) and an intraoral scanner (Trios 4; 3 Shape; Copenhagen; Denmark) was used as reference. Eight groups were created based on the core features of each superimposition method: landmark-based alignment (G1); partial area-based alignment (G2); entire tooth area-based alignment (G3); double alignment combining landmark-based alignment with entire tooth area-based alignment (G4); double alignment combining partial area-based alignment with entire tooth area-based alignment (G5); initial automated quick pre-alignment (G6); initial automated precise pre-alignment (G7); and entire model area-based alignment (G8). Diverse variations of each alignment and two regions for accuracy analyses (teeth surface or full model surface) were tested, resulting in a total of thirty-two subgroups (n=18). The alignment accuracy between experimental and reference meshes was quantified using root mean square (RMS) error as trueness and its repeatability as precision. The descriptive statistics, a factorial repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a post hoc Tuckey multiple comparison tests were used to analyze the trueness, and precision (α = .05).
RESULTS
A total of 576 superimpositions were performed. The unique partial area-based superimposition method demonstrated the least precise alignment and was the sole group to exhibit a significant difference (p<.001). Automated initial pre-alignments demonstrated similar accuracy to other superimposition methods (p>.05). Double alignments did not result in accuracy improvement (p>.05). The designated comparison area displayed differences in both trueness (p<.001) and precision (p<.001), leading to an 8±4μm discrepancy between selecting the teeth surface or full model surface.
CONCLUSIONS
The superimposition method choice within the tested software did not impact accuracy analyses, except when the alignment relies on a unique and reduced area, such as the palatal rugae, a single tooth, or three adjacent teeth on one side.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The superimposition method choice within the tested ISO-recommended 3D inspection software did not impact accuracy analyses.
To measure the impact of superimposition methods and the designated comparison area on accuracy analyses of dentate models using an ISO-recommended 3-dimensional (3D) metrology-grade inspection software (Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems; Rock Hill, South Carolina; USA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A dentate maxillary typodont scanned with a desktop scanner (E4; 3 Shape; Copenhagen; Denmark) and an intraoral scanner (Trios 4; 3 Shape; Copenhagen; Denmark) was used as reference. Eight groups were created based on the core features of each superimposition method: landmark-based alignment (G1); partial area-based alignment (G2); entire tooth area-based alignment (G3); double alignment combining landmark-based alignment with entire tooth area-based alignment (G4); double alignment combining partial area-based alignment with entire tooth area-based alignment (G5); initial automated quick pre-alignment (G6); initial automated precise pre-alignment (G7); and entire model area-based alignment (G8). Diverse variations of each alignment and two regions for accuracy analyses (teeth surface or full model surface) were tested, resulting in a total of thirty-two subgroups (n=18). The alignment accuracy between experimental and reference meshes was quantified using root mean square (RMS) error as trueness and its repeatability as precision. The descriptive statistics, a factorial repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a post hoc Tuckey multiple comparison tests were used to analyze the trueness, and precision (α = .05).
RESULTS
A total of 576 superimpositions were performed. The unique partial area-based superimposition method demonstrated the least precise alignment and was the sole group to exhibit a significant difference (p<.001). Automated initial pre-alignments demonstrated similar accuracy to other superimposition methods (p>.05). Double alignments did not result in accuracy improvement (p>.05). The designated comparison area displayed differences in both trueness (p<.001) and precision (p<.001), leading to an 8±4μm discrepancy between selecting the teeth surface or full model surface.
CONCLUSIONS
The superimposition method choice within the tested software did not impact accuracy analyses, except when the alignment relies on a unique and reduced area, such as the palatal rugae, a single tooth, or three adjacent teeth on one side.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The superimposition method choice within the tested ISO-recommended 3D inspection software did not impact accuracy analyses.
Date of Publication
2024-06
Publication Type
Article
Subject(s)
Keyword(s)
Alignment Best-fit Digital dentistry Intraoral scanner Superimposition
Language(s)
en
Contributor(s)
Limones, Alvaro | |
Çakmak, Gülce | |
Abou-Ayash, Samir | |
Delgado, Silvia | |
Parga, Juan Antonio Martínez Vázquez de | |
Celemín, Alicia |
Series
Journal of dentistry
Publisher
Elsevier
ISSN
1879-176X
Access(Rights)
open.access