Superimposition of maxillary digital models using the palatal rugae: Does ageing affect the reliability?

• Published in: Orthodontics & craniofacial research Vol. 22; no. 3; pp. 183 - 193
• Main Authors: Garib, Daniela, Miranda, Felicia, Yatabe, Marilia S., Lauris, José Roberto Pereira, Massaro, Camila, McNamara, James A., Kim‐Berman, Hera, Janson, Guilherme, Behrents, Rolf G., Cevidanes, Lucia H. S., Oliveira Ruellas, Antonio Carlos
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.08.2019
• Subjects: ageing; Aging; Craniofacial growth; dental models; Dentistry; Maxilla; Occlusion; Orthodontics; Registration; Reproducibility; reproducibility of results; Teeth; reproducibility of results; dental models; ageing
• ISSN: 1601-6335; 1601-6343
• DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12309

Structured Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of 3‐dimensional maxillary dental changes using two methods of digital model superimposition. Setting and Sample Population The Department of Orthodontics of Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo and University of Michigan Craniofacial Growth Center. Fifteen subjects with normal occlusion. Material & Methods The sample was composed of digital study models of 15 normal occlusion subjects taken at 13 (T1), 18 (T2) and 60 years of age (T3). Using the software SlicerCMF 3.1, superimposition (registration) was conducted using 9 landmarks placed on the incisive papilla, second and third palatal rugae and 10 mm distal to the third palatal rugae. Two registration methods were compared: landmarks (LA) and regions of interest (ROI). Three‐dimensional changes of landmarks on the buccal cusp tip of posterior teeth bilaterally and the incisal edge of the right central incisor were measured by three examiners. Intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland‐Altman method evaluated intra‐ and inter‐examiner agreements. Results Good or excellent intra‐examiner agreement was found for T1‐T2 and T2‐T3 measurements using both registration methods. Inter‐examiner agreements were good to excellent for T1‐T2 measurements and poor to fair for most T2‐T3 measurements. Mean T1‐T2 differences were less than 0.5 mm for most measurements. Conclusion Maxillary digital dental models of patients with normal occlusion superimposed on palatal rugae showed an adequate reliability for a 5‐year interval comparison using landmarks or regions of interest. Lower than acceptable reproducibility using both superimposition methods was found for a 40‐year interval comparison.