Accuracy of three-dimensional printed models derived from cone-beam computed tomography

• Published in: The Angle Orthodontist Vol. 92; no. 6; pp. 722 - 727
• Main Authors: Joshua M, Ferraro, Jacob, Falter, Sanghee, Lee, Keiichiro, Watanabe, Tai-Hsien, Wu, Do-Gyoon, Kim, Ching-Chang, Ko, Eiji, Tanaka, Toru, Deguchi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: The Angle Orthodontist (EH Angle Education & Research Foundation) 01.11.2022; Edward H. Angle Society of Orthodontists
• Subjects: Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Mandible; Original; Skull; Tooth
• ISSN: 0003-3219; 1945-7103; 1945-7103
• DOI: 10.2319/021122-128.1

To determine the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) printed models fabricated from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of human mandibular dry skulls in comparison with models derived from intraoral scanner (IOS) data.OBJECTIVESTo determine the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) printed models fabricated from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of human mandibular dry skulls in comparison with models derived from intraoral scanner (IOS) data.Six human mandibular dry skulls were scanned by IOS and CBCT. Digital models (DMs) constructed from the IOS and CBCT data were fabricated physically using a 3D printer. The width and thickness of individual teeth and intercanine and molar widths were measured using a digital caliper. The accuracy of the DMs was compared between IOS and CBCT. Paired t-tests were used for intergroup comparisons.MATERIALS AND METHODSSix human mandibular dry skulls were scanned by IOS and CBCT. Digital models (DMs) constructed from the IOS and CBCT data were fabricated physically using a 3D printer. The width and thickness of individual teeth and intercanine and molar widths were measured using a digital caliper. The accuracy of the DMs was compared between IOS and CBCT. Paired t-tests were used for intergroup comparisons.All intraclass correlation coefficient values for the three measurements (mesial-distal, buccal-lingual, width) exceeded 0.9. For the mandibular teeth, there were significant discrepancies in model accuracy between the IOS (average discrepancies of 0.18 ± 0.08 mm and 0.16 ± 0.12 mm for width and thickness, respectively) and CBCT (0.28 ± 0.07 mm for width, 0.37 ± 0.2 mm for thickness; P < .01). Intercanine (P = .38) and molar widths (P = .41) showed no significant difference between groups.RESULTSAll intraclass correlation coefficient values for the three measurements (mesial-distal, buccal-lingual, width) exceeded 0.9. For the mandibular teeth, there were significant discrepancies in model accuracy between the IOS (average discrepancies of 0.18 ± 0.08 mm and 0.16 ± 0.12 mm for width and thickness, respectively) and CBCT (0.28 ± 0.07 mm for width, 0.37 ± 0.2 mm for thickness; P < .01). Intercanine (P = .38) and molar widths (P = .41) showed no significant difference between groups.There was a statistically significant difference in the accuracy of DMs obtained from CBCT and IOS; however, this did not seem to result in any important clinical difference. CBCT could be routinely used as an orthodontic diagnostic tool and for appliance construction.CONCLUSIONSThere was a statistically significant difference in the accuracy of DMs obtained from CBCT and IOS; however, this did not seem to result in any important clinical difference. CBCT could be routinely used as an orthodontic diagnostic tool and for appliance construction.