Park Seo-Hyun, Byun Soo-Hwan, Oh So-Hee, Lee Hye-Lim, Kim Ju-Won, Yang Byoung-Eun, Park In-Young
Division of Pediatric Dentistry, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang 14066, Korea.
Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Hallym University, Chuncheon 24252, Korea.
J Clin Med. 2020 Aug 24;9(9):2728. doi: 10.3390/jcm9092728.
The advantages of intraoral model scanning have yielded recent developments. However, few studies have explored the orthodontic clinical use of this technique particularly among young patients. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability, reproducibility and validity of the orthodontic measurements: tooth width, arch length and arch length discrepancy in each digital model obtained by model scanner and intraoral scanner, relative to a plaster model. Arch length measured using two methods: curved arch length (CAL) measured automatically by digital program and sum of sectional liner arch length (SLAL) measured sum of anterior and posterior liner arch lengths. Arch length discrepancy calculated each arch length measurement methods: curved arch length discrepancy (CALD) and sum of sectional liner arch length discrepancy (SLALD). Forty young patients were eligible for the study. A plaster model (P), model-scanned digital model (MSD) and intraoral scanned digital model (ISD) were acquired from each patient. The reliability of the measurements was evaluated using Pearson's correlation coefficient, while the reproducibility was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. The validity was assessed by a paired t-test. All measurements measured in P, MSD and ISD exhibited good reliability and reproducibility. Most orthodontic measurements despite of CAL in MSD exhibited high validity. Only the SLAL and SLALD in ISD group differed significantly, despite the good validity of the tooth width, CAL and CALD. The measurements based on the digital program appeared high reliability, reproducibility and accurate than conventional measurement. However, SLAL and SLALD in ISD group appeared shorter because of distortion during intraoral scanning. However, this could be compensated by using digital programed curved arch. Although the validity of SLAL and SLALD in the ISD group differed statistically, the difference is not considered clinically significant. Although MSD and ISD are acceptable for a clinical space analysis, clinicians should be aware of digital model-induced errors.
口腔内模型扫描的优势带来了近期的发展。然而，很少有研究探讨这项技术在正畸临床中的应用，尤其是在年轻患者中的应用。本研究旨在评估通过模型扫描仪和口腔内扫描仪获得的每个数字模型中正畸测量值（牙齿宽度、牙弓长度和牙弓长度差异）相对于石膏模型的可靠性、可重复性和有效性。牙弓长度采用两种方法测量：通过数字程序自动测量的曲线牙弓长度（CAL）和前后直线牙弓长度之和（SLAL）。牙弓长度差异通过每种牙弓长度测量方法计算：曲线牙弓长度差异（CALD）和直线牙弓长度差异之和（SLALD）。40名年轻患者符合该研究条件。从每位患者获取一个石膏模型（P）、模型扫描数字模型（MSD）和口腔内扫描数字模型（ISD）。使用皮尔逊相关系数评估测量的可靠性，同时使用组内相关系数评估可重复性。通过配对t检验评估有效性。在P、MSD和ISD中进行的所有测量均表现出良好的可靠性和可重复性。尽管MSD中的CAL测量值存在差异，但大多数正畸测量值具有较高的有效性。尽管牙齿宽度、CAL和CALD具有良好的有效性，但ISD组中只有SLAL和SLALD存在显著差异。基于数字程序的测量显示出比传统测量更高的可靠性、可重复性和准确性。然而，由于口腔内扫描过程中的变形，ISD组中的SLAL和SLALD显得较短。不过，这可以通过使用数字编程的曲线牙弓来补偿。尽管ISD组中SLAL和SLALD的有效性在统计学上存在差异，但该差异在临床上不被认为具有显著意义。虽然MSD和ISD可用于临床间隙分析，但临床医生应注意数字模型引起的误差。
