A Comparative Analysis of Dental Measurements in Physical and Digital Orthodontic Case Study Models

• Published in: Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Vol. 58; no. 9; p. 1230
• Main Authors: Baciu, Elena-Raluca, Budală, Dana Gabriela, Vasluianu, Roxana-Ionela, Lupu, Costin Iulian, Murariu, Alice, Gelețu, Gabriela Luminița, Zetu, Irina Nicoleta, Diaconu-Popa, Diana, Tatarciuc, Monica, Nichitean, Giorgio, Luchian, Ionuț
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 01.09.2022; MDPI
• Subjects: Accuracy; additive manufacturing; arch measurements; Biological models; Calcium Sulfate; Case studies; dental study model; Dentistry; direct light processing; Educational aspects; Humans; Humidity; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Laboratories; Lasers; Light; Manufacturers; Measurement techniques; Methods; Models, Dental; Orthodontics; Patients; Physical measurements; Rapid prototyping; Reproducibility of Results; Scanners; Software; Study and teaching; Teeth; Values; Romania; Australia; Italy; additive manufacturing; dental study model; direct light processing; arch measurements
• ISSN: 1648-9144; 1010-660X; 1648-9144
• DOI: 10.3390/medicina58091230

Background and Objectives: Study models are essential tools used in the dental teaching process. The aim of the present study was to compare the values obtained by manual and digital orthodontic measurements on physical and digital case study models. Materials and Methods: The physical experimental models were obtained by traditional pouring (improved stone-type IV gypsum products) and by additive manufacturing (resins). The digital experimental models were created by scanning the physical ones, using a white light-emitting diode (LED) source and an L-shaped dental scanner—Swing DOF (DOF, Seoul, Korea). The physical study models were first measured using a digital caliper, and then, they were scanned and evaluated using the DentalCad 3.0 Galway software (exocad GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany). The Pont, Linder−Harth, and Bolton indices, which are used in orthodontics for training students, were derived using the available data. Results: When comparing the linear measurement mean ranks taken on physical study models to those of digital models, no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were found. A similar result was also shown when the dentoalveolar growth indicators were analyzed. Conclusions: It can be concluded that dental study models made by direct light processing (DLP) and pouring type IV class gypsum are both acceptable for orthodontic teaching purposes.