SpringerLink
Log in

Accuracy of stereolithographically printed digital models compared to plaster models

Genauigkeit von stereolitographisch gedruckten digitalen Modellen im Vergleich zu Gipsmodellen

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

This study compared the accuracy of plaster models from alginate impressions and printed models from intraoral scanning.

Materials and methods

A total of 28 volunteers were selected and alginate impressions and intraoral scans were used to make plaster models and digital models of their dentition, respectively. The digital models were printed using a stereolithographic (SLA) 3D printer with a horseshoe-shaped design. Two calibrated examiners measured distances on the plaster and printed models with a digital caliper. The paired t test was used to determine intraobserver error and compare the measurements. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the reliability of measurements for each model type.

Results

The measurements on plaster models and printed models show some significant differences in tooth dimensions and interarch parameters, but these differences were not clinically relevant, except for the transversal measurements. The upper and lower intermolar distances on the printed models were statistically significant and clinically relevant smaller.

Conclusions

Printed digital models with the SLA 3D printer studied, with a horseshoe-shaped base made from intraoral scans cannot replace conventional plaster models from alginate impressions in orthodontics for diagnosis and treatment planning because of their clinically relevant transversal contraction.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel

In der vorliegenden Studie sollte die Genauigkeit von nach Alginatabdrücken erstellten Gipsmodellen mit nach intraoralen Scans gedruckten Modellen mit einem SLA 3D printer verglichen werden.

Material und Methoden

Von insgesamt 28 freiwilligen Probanden wurden Alginatabdrücke und intraorale Scans für Gipsmodelle bzw. digitale Modelle angefertigt. Die digitalen Modelle wurden mit einem 3-D-Stereolithographie-Drucker (SLA) mit hufeisenförmigem Design erstellt. Nach Kalibrierung werteten zwei Untersucher beide Modelltypen mit einer digitalen Schieblehre aus. Der gepaarte tTest wurde zur Ermittlung des Intrauntersucher-Fehlers und zum Vergleich der Messungen, der Korrelationskoeffizient nach Pearson zur Evaluierung der Messreliabilität für jeden Modelltyp verwandt.

Ergebnisse

Die Messungen an beiden Modellarten zeigen einige signifikante Unterschiede bei dentalen Dimensionen und Kieferbogenparameter, mit Ausnahme der Quermessungen waren diese jedoch nicht von klinischer Relevanz. In den 3-D-Druck-Modellen waren obere wie untere intermolaren Distanzen statistisch signifikant und klinisch relevant geringer.

Schlussfolgerungen

Wegen der Querkontraktion können anhand von intraoralen Scans gedruckte digitale Modelle mit einer hufeisenförmigen Basis die konventionellen Gipsmodelle nach Alginatabdrücken bei der kieferorthopädischen Diagnostik- und Behandlungsplanung nicht ersetzen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aboul-Hosn Centenero S, Hernandez-Alfaro F (2012) 3D planning in orthognathic surgery: CAD/CAM surgical splints and prediction of the soft and hard tissues results—our experience in 16 cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 40:162–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Akyalcin S, Cozad BE, English JD, Colville CD, Laman S (2013) Diagnostic accuracy of impression-free digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 144:916–922

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Al Mortadi N, Eggbeer D, Lewis J, Williams RJ (2012) CAD/CAM/AM applications in the manufacture of dental appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 142:727–733

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Asquith J, Gillgrass T, Mossey P (2007) Three-dimensional imaging of orthodontic models: a pilot study. Eur J Orthod 29:517–522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bae MJ, Kim JY, Park JT, Cha JY, Kim HJ, Yu HS et al (2013) Accuracy of miniscrew surgical guides assessed from cone-beam computed tomography and digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 143:893–901

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bootvong K, Liu Z, McGrath C, Hagg U, Wong RW, Bendeus M et al (2010) Virtual model analysis as an alternative approach to plaster model analysis: reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 32:589–595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Choi JY, Choi JH, Kim NK, Kim Y, Lee JK, Kim MK et al (2002) Analysis of errors in medical rapid prototy** models. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 31:23–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ciuffolo F, Epifania E, Duranti G, De Luca V, Raviglia D, Rezza S et al (2006) Rapid prototy**: a new method of preparing trays for indirect bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 129:75–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cuperus AM, Harms MC, Rangel FA, Bronkhorst EM, Schols JG, Breuning KH (2012) Dental models made with an intraoral scanner: a validation study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 142:308–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. de Waard O, Rangel FA, Fudalej PS, Bronkhorst EM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Breuning KH (2014) Reproducibility and accuracy of linear measurements on dental models derived from cone-beam computed tomography compared with digital dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 146:328–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A (2011) Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 14:1–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC (2013) Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144:471–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Garino F, Garino GB (2002) Comparison of dental arch measurements between stone and digital casts. World J Orthod 3:250–254

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gateno J, **a J, Teichgraeber JF, Rosen A, Hultgren B, Vadnais T (2003) The precision of computer-generated surgical splints. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 61:814–817

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Grunheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE (2014) Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 146:673–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Grunheid T, Patel N, De Felippe NL, Wey A, Gaillard PR, Larson BE (2014) Accuracy, reproducibility, and time efficiency of dental measurements using different technologies. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 145:157–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hazeveld A, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y (2014) Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototy** techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 145:108–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hernandez-Alfaro F, Guijarro-Martinez R (2013) New protocol for three-dimensional surgical planning and CAD/CAM splint generation in orthognathic surgery: an in vitro and in vivo study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42:1547–1556

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kasparova M, Grafova L, Dvorak P, Dostalova T, Prochazka A, Eliasova H et al (2013) Possibility of reconstruction of dental plaster cast from 3D digital study models. Biomed Eng Online 12:49

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kau CH, Littlefield J, Rainy N, Nguyen JT, Creed B (2010) Evaluation of CBCT digital models and traditional models using the Little’s index. Angle Orthod 80:435–439

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R, Zhurov AI (2008) A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod 35:191–201 (Discussion 175)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim J, Heo G, Lagravere MO (2014) Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to plaster models and cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 84:443–450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lagravere MO, Flores-Mir C (2005) The treatment effects of Invisalign orthodontic aligners: a systematic review. J Am Dent Assoc 136:1724–1729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lauren M, McIntyre F (2008) A new computer-assisted method for design and fabrication of occlusal splints. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 133:S130–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ (2009) Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 136:16 e1-4 (Discussion 16)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mullen SR, Martin CA, Ngan P, Gladwin M (2007) Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 132:346–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Murugesan K, Anandapandian PA, Sharma SK, Vasantha Kumar M (2012) Comparative evaluation of dimension and surface detail accuracy of models produced by three different rapid prototype techniques. J Indian Prosthodont 12:16–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Naidu D, Freer TJ (2013) Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: a comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144:304–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pandis N (2012) Sample calculations for comparison of 2 means. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 141:519–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ (2003) Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 124:101–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW (2006) Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 129:794–803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Torabi K, Farjood E, Hamedani S (2015) Rapid prototy** technologies and their applications in prosthodontics, a review of literature. J Dent (Shiraz) 16:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  33. van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y (2012) Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One 7:e43312

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Nolthenius HET, van der Meer WJ, Rend Y (2013) Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 143:140–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yan** L, Shilei Z, ** technology. Int J Adv Manuf 28:919–922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Zilberman O, Huggare JA, Parikakis KA (2003) Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod 73:301–306

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the “National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development” (CNPq) for the scholarship for the first author of this study and to the OrthoProof® company for printing the models used in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, Federal Fluminense University, Mário Santos Braga Street 30, 2nd Floor, Room 214, Niteroi, RJ, 24020-140, Brazil

    Leonardo Tavares Camardella & Oswaldo V. Vilella

  2. Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Marleen M. van Hezel

  3. Department of Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Karel H. Breuning

Authors
  1. Leonardo Tavares Camardella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oswaldo V. Vilella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marleen M. van Hezel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karel H. Breuning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonardo Tavares Camardella.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

LT. Camardella, O.V. Vilella, M.M. van Hezel, and K.H. Breuning declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Dr. Leonardo Tavares Camardella.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Camardella, L.T., Vilella, O.V., van Hezel, M.M. et al. Accuracy of stereolithographically printed digital models compared to plaster models. J Orofac Orthop 78, 394–402 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-017-0093-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-017-0093-1

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation