Department of Orthodontics. Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Brazil.
Division of Orthodontics and Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Perú.
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2022 May;25(2):269-279. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12535. Epub 2021 Sep 30.
To compare and assess the reproducibility of 3 methods for registration of maxillary digital dental models in patients with anterior open bite. Settings and sample population Digital dental models of 16 children with an anterior open bite in the mixed dentition were obtained before (T1) and after 12 months of treatment with bonded spurs (T2).
Landmarks were placed on all T2 models and 3 registration methods (R1, R2 and R3) were independently performed by 2 observers. R1 was based on 10 landmarks placed on posterior teeth. R2 was based on 5 landmarks on the palate (2 anterior, 2 posterior and 1 central). R3 used regions of interest around the 5 palatal landmarks used in R2. The differences between the registration methods were calculated by comparing the mean differences and standard deviations between the corresponding x, y and z coordinates of 6 corresponding landmarks in the T2 registered models. Repeated measures analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni tests were used for comparisons (P < .05). The agreement between methods and the intra and interobserver reproducibility were assessed with Bland-Altman tests and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
Comparisons of R2 with R3 methods showed greater agreement, mean differences ≤0.50 mm for all landmarks, than comparisons of R1 with R2, and R1 with R3, mean differences >0.50 mm for most of the y and z coordinates (P < .05). The R1 and R3 methods presented excellent intra and interobserver reproducibility and R2 method had moderate interobserver reproducibility.
Longitudinal assessments of open bite treatment using digital dental models could consider the posterior teeth and/or the palate as references. The R1 and R3 methods showed adequate reproducibility and yield different quantitative results. The choice will depend on the posterior teeth changes and dental models' characteristics.
比较和评估 3 种上颌数字化牙模在前牙开𬌗患者中配准的可重复性。
在混合牙列中获得 16 例前牙开𬌗儿童的数字化牙模,在治疗后 12 个月(T2)获得。
在所有 T2 模型上放置标志点,并由 2 名观察者独立进行 3 种配准方法(R1、R2 和 R3)。R1 基于 10 个放置在后牙上的标志点。R2 基于 5 个放置在 palate 上的标志点(2 个前,2 个后,1 个中央)。R3 使用 R2 中使用的 5 个 palatal 标志点周围的感兴趣区域。通过比较 T2 注册模型中 6 个对应标志点的相应 x、y 和 z 坐标的平均差异和标准偏差,计算注册方法之间的差异。采用重复测量方差分析,然后进行事后 Bonferroni 检验进行比较(P < 0.05)。采用 Bland-Altman 检验和组内相关系数(ICC)评估方法间和观察者内、观察者间的可重复性。
R2 与 R3 方法的比较显示,所有标志点的差异均≤0.50mm,具有更大的一致性,而 R1 与 R2 以及 R1 与 R3 的比较,大多数 y 和 z 坐标的差异均>0.50mm(P < 0.05)。R1 和 R3 方法具有良好的观察者内和观察者间可重复性,而 R2 方法具有中等的观察者间可重复性。
数字化牙模在前牙开𬌗治疗的纵向评估中,可以将后牙和/或 palate 作为参考。R1 和 R3 方法具有足够的可重复性,并产生不同的定量结果。选择将取决于后牙的变化和牙模的特征。