Log in

Reliability and intra-examiner agreement of orthodontic model analysis with a digital caliper on plaster and printed dental models

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To investigate if orthodontic model analysis with a digital caliper can be interchangeably performed between plaster and printed dental models.

Materials and methods

Forty-eight plaster models were digitized with orthoX®scan (DENTAURUM) and 48 counterparts were printed with Objet30 Dental Prime (Stratasys). One examiner performed five repeated orthodontic model analyses (41 outcomes) with a digital caliper in each plaster and the corresponding printed model and was externally validated by a second examiner. Inter- and intra-examiner reliability and error were evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Dahlberg’s formula, intra-examiner agreement with Bland-Altman analyses and Lin’s correlation coefficients (CCCs), and changing bias with regression analyses.

Results

Inter- and intra-examiner ICCs and Dahlberg’s error were ≥ 0.75 and ≤ 0.5 mm, respectively, for most outcomes in both plaster and printed models. Intra-examiner agreement (systematic bias) between plaster and printed models ranged from − 0.45 to 0.45 mm. Ranges of limits of agreement were wide for cumulative outcomes, such as crowding maxilla and mandible (2.69 mm and 3.07 mm around zero, respectively). Tooth widths were measured slightly larger in printed models. Lin’s CCCs were ≥ 0.87 for all the outcomes between plaster and printed models, while no changing bias was detected.

Conclusion

If orthodontic model analyses are consistently performed, plaster casts and their corresponding printed models obtained with orthoX®scan and Objet30 Dental Prime can be interchangeably used for clinical purposes in orthodontics.

Clinical relevance

Orthodontic model analysis is important in treatment planning and printed dental models need to be validated regarding this diagnostic procedure.

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

Access this article

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kröger E, Dekiff M, Dirksen D (2016) 3D printed simulation models based on real patient situations for hands-on practice. Eur J Dent Educ 21:e119–e125. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Koretsi V, Tingelhoff L, Proff P, Kirschneck C (2017) Intra-observer reliability and agreement of manual and digital orthodontic model analysis. Eur J Orthod 40:52–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjx040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. OrthoX® Scan Advantages - DENTAURUM. https://www.dentaurum.de/eng/orthox-scan-24165.aspx. Accessed 21 Aug 2018

  4. Objet30 Dental Prime - Stratasys. http://www.stratasys.com/3d-printers/dental-series/objet30-dental-prime. Accessed 10 Jul 2017

  5. Lee KY, Cho JW, Chang NY, Chae JM, Kang KH, Kim SC, Cho JH (2015) Accuracy of three-dimensional printing for manufacturing replica teeth. Korean J Orthod 45:217–225

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Dietrich CA, Ender A, Baumgartner S, Mehl A (2017) A validation study of reconstructed rapid prototy** models produced by two technologies. Angle Orthod 87:782–787. https://doi.org/10.2319/01091-727.1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al (2015) STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ 351:h5527

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Kottner J, Audigé L, Brorson S, Donner A, Gajewski BJ, Hróbjartsson A, Roberts C, Shoukri M, Streiner DL (2011) Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 64:96–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Moyers RE (1988) Handbook of orthodontics, 4th edn. Year Book Medical Pub, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kamoen A, Dermaut L, Verbeeck R (2001) The clinical significance of error measurement in the interpretation of treatment results. Eur J Orthod 23:569–578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Houston WJ, Maher RE, McElroy D, Sherriff M (1986) Sources of error in measurements from cephalometric radiographs. Eur J Orthod 8:149–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lomax RG, Hahs-Vaughn DL (2012) An introduction to statistical concepts. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kim HY (2013) Statistical notes for clinical researchers: evaluation of measurement error 1: using intraclass correlation coefficients. Restor Dent Endod 38:98–102

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lin LI (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45:255–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bartlett JW, Frost C (2008) Reliability, repeatability and reproducibility: analysis of measurement errors in continuous variables. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31:466–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 

  18. Luu NS, Mandich M-A, Flores-Mir C, el-Bialy T, Heo G, Carey JP, Major PW (2014) The validity, reliability, and time requirement of study model analysis using cone-beam computed tomography-generated virtual study models. Orthod Craniofac Res 17:14–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Burdock EI, Fleiss JL, Hardesty AS (1963) A new view of inter-observer agreement. Pers Psychol 16:373–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bootvong K, Liu Z, McGrath C, Hagg U, Wong RWK, Bendeus M, Yeung S (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 

  21. Kieser JA, Groeneveld HT (1991) The reliability of human odontometric data. J Dent Assoc S Afr 46:267–270

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Shellhart WC, Lange DW, Kluemper GT et al (1995) Reliability of the Bolton tooth-size analysis when applied to crowded dentitions. Angle Orthod 65:327–334

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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 

  24. Radeke J, von der Wense C, Lapatki BG (2014) Comparison of orthodontic measurements on dental plaster casts and 3D scans. J Orofac Orthop 75:264–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi CL (2016) Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 149:161–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Han UK, Vig KW, Weintraub JA et al (1991) Consistency of orthodontic treatment decisions relative to diagnostic records. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 100:212–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Naish H, Dunbar C, Crouch-Baker J, Shah K, Wallis C, Atack NE, Sherriff M, Sandy JR, Ireland AJ (2016) Does a true knowledge of dental crowding affect orthodontic treatment decisions? Eur J Orthod 38:66–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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 

  29. Baumrind S, Frantz RC (1971) The reliability of head film measurements. 1 Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 60:111–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Luu NS, Nikolcheva LG, Retrouvey JM, Flores-Mir C, el-Bialy T, Carey JP, Major PW (2012) Linear measurements using virtual study models. Angle Orthod 82:1098–1106

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Bland JM, Altman DG (2003) Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 22:85–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hazeveld A, Huddleston Slater JJR, 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 

  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. Patzelt SBM, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W (2014) Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 18:1687–1694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ishida Y, Miyasaka T (2016) Dimensional accuracy of dental casting patterns created by 3D printers. Dent Mater J 35:250–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vasiliki Koretsi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Registration

This study was not registered.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 2894 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koretsi, V., Kirschbauer, C., Proff, P. et al. Reliability and intra-examiner agreement of orthodontic model analysis with a digital caliper on plaster and printed dental models. Clin Oral Invest 23, 3387–3396 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2772-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2772-8

Keywords

Navigation