Camcı Hasan, Salmanpour Farhad
Department of Orthodontics, Afyonkarahisar Health Science University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey.
Turk J Orthod. 2021 Dec;34(4):220-226. doi: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.20146.
To assess the impact of type or amount of tooth movement on the success of 3D model superimposition by using two different algorithms.
The sample consisted of pre-treatment digital maxillary models of forty patients. Eight different groups were created by applying 8 different virtual setups to each model. Teeth crowns were moved 1mm or 2mm in different directions (sagittal, transversal, vertical, combination) using the Ortho Analyzer software. Each model obtained from the virtual setup was overlapped with the original model using the landmark-based (LB) and local-best-fit (LBF) algorithms. In the post-superimposition assessment, the area of the palate vault which was not affected by teeth movements was selected. Both groups and algorithms were compared using RMS (root mean square) and PMA (percentage of perfectly matched areas) numeric data. In addition, the displacement of the right canine (RC) was measured after superimposition. The comparison of the superposition outcomes among the groups was evaluated with one-way ANOVA and Kruskal Wallis. The student t-test was used to compare two algorithms.
Both algorithms were not affected by the type of tooth movement. However, the increase in the amount of tooth movement negatively affected the performance of the LB algorithm. LBF achieved the model superimpositions more effectively and faster than LB. No difference was found in RC measurements between the LB and LBF algorithms.
The results indicate that LBF offers more sensitive and successful 3D superimposition models. The performance of the LB algorithm was, however, acceptable for analysis of 3D teeth movement.
通过使用两种不同算法评估牙齿移动类型或量对三维模型叠加成功率的影响。
样本包括40例患者的治疗前数字化上颌模型。对每个模型应用8种不同的虚拟设置创建8个不同的组。使用Ortho Analyzer软件将牙冠在不同方向(矢状、横向、垂直、组合)移动1毫米或2毫米。使用基于标志点(LB)和局部最佳拟合(LBF)算法将从虚拟设置获得的每个模型与原始模型进行叠加。在叠加后评估中,选择未受牙齿移动影响的腭穹窿区域。使用均方根(RMS)和完美匹配区域百分比(PMA)数值数据对两组和两种算法进行比较。此外,叠加后测量右上尖牙(RC)的位移。使用单向方差分析和Kruskal Wallis评估组间叠加结果的比较。使用学生t检验比较两种算法。
两种算法均不受牙齿移动类型的影响。然而,牙齿移动量的增加对LB算法的性能产生负面影响。LBF比LB更有效、更快地实现模型叠加。LB和LBF算法在RC测量中未发现差异。
结果表明LBF提供更敏感和成功的三维叠加模型。然而,LB算法的性能对于三维牙齿移动分析是可接受的。