Limits...
Reliability and validity of intraoral and extraoral scanners.

Jacob HB, Wyatt GD, Buschang PH - Prog Orthod (2015)

Bottom Line: Replicate analyses showed statistically significant systematic errors for only one measure (intermolar width measured from Ortho Insight 3D scans).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.While all three scanners produced reliable measures, Ortho Insight 3D systematically underestimated arch length and canine height.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthodontics, Texas A&M University Baylor College of Dentistry, 3302 Gaston Avenue, 75246, Dallas, TX, USA.

ABSTRACT

Background: This 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.

Methods: Fifteen 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.

Results: Replicate 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.

Conclusions: While all three scanners produced reliable measures, Ortho Insight 3D systematically underestimated arch length and canine height.

No MeSH data available.


a Arch_length and b Canine_height comparisons among the scanners, with arrows pointing to the larger measure and probabilities in parentheses
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4623872&req=5

Fig2: a Arch_length and b Canine_height comparisons among the scanners, with arrows pointing to the larger measure and probabilities in parentheses

Mentions: Comparisons among the three scanners showed four statistically significant systematic differences (Fig. 2). Arch_length and Canine_height were significantly smaller when measured on the Ortho Insight 3D than on the other two scanners.Fig. 2


Reliability and validity of intraoral and extraoral scanners.

Jacob HB, Wyatt GD, Buschang PH - Prog Orthod (2015)

a Arch_length and b Canine_height comparisons among the scanners, with arrows pointing to the larger measure and probabilities in parentheses
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4623872&req=5

Fig2: a Arch_length and b Canine_height comparisons among the scanners, with arrows pointing to the larger measure and probabilities in parentheses
Mentions: Comparisons among the three scanners showed four statistically significant systematic differences (Fig. 2). Arch_length and Canine_height were significantly smaller when measured on the Ortho Insight 3D than on the other two scanners.Fig. 2

Bottom Line: Replicate analyses showed statistically significant systematic errors for only one measure (intermolar width measured from Ortho Insight 3D scans).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.While all three scanners produced reliable measures, Ortho Insight 3D systematically underestimated arch length and canine height.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthodontics, Texas A&M University Baylor College of Dentistry, 3302 Gaston Avenue, 75246, Dallas, TX, USA.

ABSTRACT

Background: This 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.

Methods: Fifteen 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.

Results: Replicate 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.

Conclusions: While all three scanners produced reliable measures, Ortho Insight 3D systematically underestimated arch length and canine height.

No MeSH data available.