比较用于隐形矫治治疗的虚拟排牙软件程序。

Comparing virtual setup software programs for clear aligner treatment.

作者信息

Eliliwi Manhal, ElShebiny Tarek, de Menezes Luciane Macedo, Stefanovic Neda, Palomo Juan Martin

机构信息

Private Practice, Springfield, Virginia.

Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.

出版信息

J World Fed Orthod. 2023 Apr;12(2):50-55. doi: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2023.02.004. Epub 2023 Mar 14.

DOI:10.1016/j.ejwf.2023.02.004

PMID:36925451

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the same amount of tooth movement among four different virtual setup software programs.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 32 patients who underwent Invisalign treatment. Patients' initial stereolithography (STL) files were imported to three different software programs (SureSmile Aligner [Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC], Ortho Insight 3D [Motion View software, Chattanooga, TN], and Ortho Analyzer [3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark]). After virtually moving teeth based on the numbers from ClinCheck Pro (Align Technology, Inc., Santa Clara, CA) tooth movement tables, final STL files were exported from all four software programs. ClinCheck Pro final STL files were used as references, while final STL files from the other software programs were used as targets. Superimpositions were performed between references and target STL files using Geomagic Control X software (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC), and color-coded maps were obtained to illustrate potential differences.

RESULTS

Intraclass correlation coefficient showed a high degree of reliability for repeated methodology (0.995-0.997). The differences among absolute averages (Abs Avg.), averages of positive values (+Avg.), and negative values (-Avg.) for both upper and lower models were significant among all software programs (ClinCheck Pro, SureSmile Aligner, Ortho Insight 3D, and Ortho Analyzer), for both upper and lower STL files, the smallest difference was found between ClinCheck Pro and SureSmile Aligner with a median of (0.03, 0.31, -0.19) mm for upper and (0.02, 0.29, -0.17) mm for lower STL files (Abs Avg., +Avg. and -Avg.), respectively. The biggest difference was found to be between ClinCheck Pro and Ortho Analyzer with a median of (0.05, 0.46, -0.45) mm for upper and (0.06, 0.48, -0.40) mm for lower STL files. There were no significant differences in the number of aligners per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Final outcomes of the same amount of tooth movement in four different software programs differed significantly. The number of aligners per patient remained unchanged.

摘要

背景

本研究的目的是比较四种不同虚拟排牙软件程序中相同牙齿移动量的结果。

方法

这项回顾性研究纳入了32例接受隐适美治疗的患者。将患者的初始立体光刻（STL）文件导入三种不同的软件程序（SureSmile Aligner[登士柏西诺德公司，北卡罗来纳州夏洛特市]、Ortho Insight 3D[Motion View软件，田纳西州查塔努加市]和Ortho Analyzer[3Shape公司，丹麦哥本哈根市]）。根据ClinCheck Pro（Align Technology公司，加利福尼亚州圣克拉拉市）牙齿移动表中的数据虚拟移动牙齿后，从所有四种软件程序中导出最终的STL文件。ClinCheck Pro最终STL文件用作参考，而其他软件程序的最终STL文件用作目标。使用Geomagic Control X软件（3D Systems公司，南卡罗来纳州罗克希尔市）在参考和目标STL文件之间进行叠加，并获得彩色编码图以说明潜在差异。

结果

组内相关系数显示重复方法具有高度可靠性（0.995 - 0.997）。所有软件程序（ClinCheck Pro、SureSmile Aligner、Ortho Insight 3D和Ortho Analyzer）中上、下模型的绝对平均值（Abs Avg.）、正值平均值（+Avg.）和负值平均值（-Avg.）之间的差异均具有统计学意义，对于上、下STL文件，ClinCheck Pro和SureSmile Aligner之间的差异最小，上STL文件的中位数为（0.03, 0.31, -0.19）mm，下STL文件的中位数为（0.02, 0.29, -0.17）mm（Abs Avg.、+Avg.和 -Avg.）。发现ClinCheck Pro和Ortho Analyzer之间的差异最大，上STL文件的中位数为（0.05, 0.46, -0.45）mm，下STL文件的中位数为（0.06, 0.48, -0.40）mm。每位患者的矫治器数量没有显著差异。