Quantifying maxillary anterior tooth movement in digital orthodontics: Does the choice of the superimposition software matter?

• Published in: Journal of the world federation of orthodontists Vol. 12; no. 5; pp. 187 - 196
• Main Authors: Adel, Samar M., Vaid, Nikhilesh R., El-Harouni, Nadia, Kassem, Hassan, Park, Jae Hyun, Zaher, Abbas R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Inc 01.10.2023
• Subjects: 3D Digital models; Artificial intelligence; Clear aligner therapy; Digital setup; Maxillary anterior 3D tooth movement; Registration; 3D Digital models; Artificial intelligence; Registration; Clear aligner therapy; Digital setup; Maxillary anterior 3D tooth movement
• ISSN: 2212-4438; 2212-4438
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2023.07.002

•Evaluated accuracy of anterior tooth movements using various digital model registration software.•No consistent agreements across maxillary anterior teeth nor across different tooth movements.•Maxillary central incisors showed higher agreements compared with maxillary laterals and canines.•None of the software showed poor agreement.•Geomagic seemed to have the highest accuracy. To compare the agreement between predetermined angular and linear tooth movement measurements processed with three digital model registration software packages. Twenty maxillary intraoral pretreatment scans of patients undergoing clear aligner therapy were randomly selected. Digital setups were generated using OrthoAnalyzer Clear Aligner Studio software to serve as the reference standard. Both pretreatment scans and setups were converted to STL files and exported to Geomagic, OrthoAnalyzer-Model Set Compare, and Compare model registration software packages. The amount of tooth movement of the maxillary incisors and canines was calculated in six degrees of freedom. Statistical significance of the obtained results was expressed at P < 0.01 to account for multiple comparisons. The maxillary central incisors showed the highest agreement for torque and rotation as measured by all software programs. Lateral incisors showed the least agreement in linear movements as measured by Geomagic and Compare, and for tip as measured by Geomagic and OrthoAnalyzer. Maxillary canines had the highest agreement for all linear movements as measured by Geomagic and Compare, and tip as measured by Geomagic and OrthoAnalyzer. Geomagic showed excellent agreement for all measurements except for torque, whereas Compare showed excellent agreement only for rotation and linear measurements. OrthoAnalyzer showed moderate agreement for all measurements except for rotation, which showed good agreement. Maxillary central incisor measurements showed higher agreement compared with measurements of the maxillary lateral incisors and canines. Although none of the software showed poor agreement, Geomagic seemed to have the highest accuracy.