Comparison and reproducibility of three methods for maxillary digital dental model registration in open bite patients
Objective To compare and assess the reproducibility of 3 methods for registration of maxillary digital dental models in patients with anterior open bite. Settings and sample population Digital dental models of 16 children with an anterior open bite in the mixed dentition were obtained before (T1) an...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Orthodontics & craniofacial research 2022-05, Vol.25 (2), p.269-279 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 279 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 269 |
| container_title | Orthodontics & craniofacial research |
| container_volume | 25 |
| creator | Aliaga‐Del Castillo, Aron Vilanova, Lorena Janson, Guilherme Arriola‐Guillén, Luis Ernesto Garib, Daniela Miranda, Felicia Massaro, Camila Yatabe, Marilia Cevidanes, Lucia Ruellas, Antonio Carlos |
| description | Objective
To compare and assess the reproducibility of 3 methods for registration of maxillary digital dental models in patients with anterior open bite.
Settings and sample population
Digital dental models of 16 children with an anterior open bite in the mixed dentition were obtained before (T1) and after 12 months of treatment with bonded spurs (T2).
Methods
Landmarks were placed on all T2 models and 3 registration methods (R1, R2 and R3) were independently performed by 2 observers. R1 was based on 10 landmarks placed on posterior teeth. R2 was based on 5 landmarks on the palate (2 anterior, 2 posterior and 1 central). R3 used regions of interest around the 5 palatal landmarks used in R2. The differences between the registration methods were calculated by comparing the mean differences and standard deviations between the corresponding x, y and z coordinates of 6 corresponding landmarks in the T2 registered models. Repeated measures analysis of variance followed by post‐hoc Bonferroni tests were used for comparisons (P 0.50 mm for most of the y and z coordinates (P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/ocr.12535 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8934310</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2652742258</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4435-64c951b7d60e0bad3a363a8bff6a06ad8b9904fe0cd0aad3fe8b5d96d91fc9223</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1r3DAQhkVoadK0h_yBIOilPWyiD0trXwJhST8gECjtWcjSaFfBthzJTrr_PpNuuqSF6jJC8_DOO3oJOeHsjOM5Ty6fcaGkOiBHXDO-0LKSr_Z3qQ7J21JuGRNMCP2GHMpKVVLx-ojMq9SPNseSBmoHTzOMOfnZxTZ2cdrSFOi0yQC0h2mTfKEhZdrbX7HrbN5SH9dxsh31MDyVPnnoUGMdy5TtFFE0DjSNMNA2TkBHfEOyvCOvg-0KvH-ux-Tn56sfq6-L65sv31aX1wtXob-FrlyjeLv0mgFrrZdWamnrNgRtmba-bpuGVQGY88xiO0DdKt9o3_DgGiHkMbnY6Y5z24N3ODvbzow59ujeJBvN350hbsw63Zu6wR_kDAU-PgvkdDdDmUwfiwNcfoA0FyPUUjG9rBuN6Id_0Ns05wHXM0IrsayEUDVSn3aUy6mUDGFvhjPzFKbBMM3vMJE9fel-T_5JD4HzHfAQO9j-X8ncrL7vJB8Bi-Osuw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2652742258</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison and reproducibility of three methods for maxillary digital dental model registration in open bite patients</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Aliaga‐Del Castillo, Aron ; Vilanova, Lorena ; Janson, Guilherme ; Arriola‐Guillén, Luis Ernesto ; Garib, Daniela ; Miranda, Felicia ; Massaro, Camila ; Yatabe, Marilia ; Cevidanes, Lucia ; Ruellas, Antonio Carlos</creator><creatorcontrib>Aliaga‐Del Castillo, Aron ; Vilanova, Lorena ; Janson, Guilherme ; Arriola‐Guillén, Luis Ernesto ; Garib, Daniela ; Miranda, Felicia ; Massaro, Camila ; Yatabe, Marilia ; Cevidanes, Lucia ; Ruellas, Antonio Carlos</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
To compare and assess the reproducibility of 3 methods for registration of maxillary digital dental models in patients with anterior open bite.
Settings and sample population
Digital dental models of 16 children with an anterior open bite in the mixed dentition were obtained before (T1) and after 12 months of treatment with bonded spurs (T2).
Methods
Landmarks were placed on all T2 models and 3 registration methods (R1, R2 and R3) were independently performed by 2 observers. R1 was based on 10 landmarks placed on posterior teeth. R2 was based on 5 landmarks on the palate (2 anterior, 2 posterior and 1 central). R3 used regions of interest around the 5 palatal landmarks used in R2. The differences between the registration methods were calculated by comparing the mean differences and standard deviations between the corresponding x, y and z coordinates of 6 corresponding landmarks in the T2 registered models. Repeated measures analysis of variance followed by post‐hoc Bonferroni tests were used for comparisons (P < .05). The agreement between methods and the intra and interobserver reproducibility were assessed with Bland‐Altman tests and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
Results
Comparisons of R2 with R3 methods showed greater agreement, mean differences ≤0.50 mm for all landmarks, than comparisons of R1 with R2, and R1 with R3, mean differences >0.50 mm for most of the y and z coordinates (P < .05). The R1 and R3 methods presented excellent intra and interobserver reproducibility and R2 method had moderate interobserver reproducibility.
Conclusions
Longitudinal assessments of open bite treatment using digital dental models could consider the posterior teeth and/or the palate as references. The R1 and R3 methods showed adequate reproducibility and yield different quantitative results. The choice will depend on the posterior teeth changes and dental models’ characteristics.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1601-6335</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1601-6343</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12535</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34543518</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Child ; Dental models ; Dentition ; Humans ; Maxilla ; Models, Dental ; open bite ; Open Bite - diagnostic imaging ; Open Bite - therapy ; Palate ; Patients ; Registration ; Reproducibility ; Reproducibility of Results ; Teeth ; Three‐dimensional imaging</subject><ispartof>Orthodontics & craniofacial research, 2022-05, Vol.25 (2), p.269-279</ispartof><rights>2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 John Wiley & Sons A/S</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4435-64c951b7d60e0bad3a363a8bff6a06ad8b9904fe0cd0aad3fe8b5d96d91fc9223</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4435-64c951b7d60e0bad3a363a8bff6a06ad8b9904fe0cd0aad3fe8b5d96d91fc9223</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8748-6714 ; 0000-0003-3963-1742 ; 0000-0001-9786-2253 ; 0000-0002-7575-1613 ; 0000-0002-2449-1620</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Focr.12535$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Focr.12535$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1416,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34543518$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Aliaga‐Del Castillo, Aron</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vilanova, Lorena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janson, Guilherme</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arriola‐Guillén, Luis Ernesto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garib, Daniela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miranda, Felicia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Massaro, Camila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yatabe, Marilia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cevidanes, Lucia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruellas, Antonio Carlos</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison and reproducibility of three methods for maxillary digital dental model registration in open bite patients</title><title>Orthodontics & craniofacial research</title><addtitle>Orthod Craniofac Res</addtitle><description>Objective
To compare and assess the reproducibility of 3 methods for registration of maxillary digital dental models in patients with anterior open bite.
Settings and sample population
Digital dental models of 16 children with an anterior open bite in the mixed dentition were obtained before (T1) and after 12 months of treatment with bonded spurs (T2).
Methods
Landmarks were placed on all T2 models and 3 registration methods (R1, R2 and R3) were independently performed by 2 observers. R1 was based on 10 landmarks placed on posterior teeth. R2 was based on 5 landmarks on the palate (2 anterior, 2 posterior and 1 central). R3 used regions of interest around the 5 palatal landmarks used in R2. The differences between the registration methods were calculated by comparing the mean differences and standard deviations between the corresponding x, y and z coordinates of 6 corresponding landmarks in the T2 registered models. Repeated measures analysis of variance followed by post‐hoc Bonferroni tests were used for comparisons (P < .05). The agreement between methods and the intra and interobserver reproducibility were assessed with Bland‐Altman tests and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
Results
Comparisons of R2 with R3 methods showed greater agreement, mean differences ≤0.50 mm for all landmarks, than comparisons of R1 with R2, and R1 with R3, mean differences >0.50 mm for most of the y and z coordinates (P < .05). The R1 and R3 methods presented excellent intra and interobserver reproducibility and R2 method had moderate interobserver reproducibility.
Conclusions
Longitudinal assessments of open bite treatment using digital dental models could consider the posterior teeth and/or the palate as references. The R1 and R3 methods showed adequate reproducibility and yield different quantitative results. The choice will depend on the posterior teeth changes and dental models’ characteristics.</description><subject>Child</subject><subject>Dental models</subject><subject>Dentition</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Maxilla</subject><subject>Models, Dental</subject><subject>open bite</subject><subject>Open Bite - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Open Bite - therapy</subject><subject>Palate</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Registration</subject><subject>Reproducibility</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Teeth</subject><subject>Three‐dimensional imaging</subject><issn>1601-6335</issn><issn>1601-6343</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU1r3DAQhkVoadK0h_yBIOilPWyiD0trXwJhST8gECjtWcjSaFfBthzJTrr_PpNuuqSF6jJC8_DOO3oJOeHsjOM5Ty6fcaGkOiBHXDO-0LKSr_Z3qQ7J21JuGRNMCP2GHMpKVVLx-ojMq9SPNseSBmoHTzOMOfnZxTZ2cdrSFOi0yQC0h2mTfKEhZdrbX7HrbN5SH9dxsh31MDyVPnnoUGMdy5TtFFE0DjSNMNA2TkBHfEOyvCOvg-0KvH-ux-Tn56sfq6-L65sv31aX1wtXob-FrlyjeLv0mgFrrZdWamnrNgRtmba-bpuGVQGY88xiO0DdKt9o3_DgGiHkMbnY6Y5z24N3ODvbzow59ujeJBvN350hbsw63Zu6wR_kDAU-PgvkdDdDmUwfiwNcfoA0FyPUUjG9rBuN6Id_0Ns05wHXM0IrsayEUDVSn3aUy6mUDGFvhjPzFKbBMM3vMJE9fel-T_5JD4HzHfAQO9j-X8ncrL7vJB8Bi-Osuw</recordid><startdate>202205</startdate><enddate>202205</enddate><creator>Aliaga‐Del Castillo, Aron</creator><creator>Vilanova, Lorena</creator><creator>Janson, Guilherme</creator><creator>Arriola‐Guillén, Luis Ernesto</creator><creator>Garib, Daniela</creator><creator>Miranda, Felicia</creator><creator>Massaro, Camila</creator><creator>Yatabe, Marilia</creator><creator>Cevidanes, Lucia</creator><creator>Ruellas, Antonio Carlos</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8748-6714</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3963-1742</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9786-2253</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7575-1613</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2449-1620</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202205</creationdate><title>Comparison and reproducibility of three methods for maxillary digital dental model registration in open bite patients</title><author>Aliaga‐Del Castillo, Aron ; Vilanova, Lorena ; Janson, Guilherme ; Arriola‐Guillén, Luis Ernesto ; Garib, Daniela ; Miranda, Felicia ; Massaro, Camila ; Yatabe, Marilia ; Cevidanes, Lucia ; Ruellas, Antonio Carlos</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4435-64c951b7d60e0bad3a363a8bff6a06ad8b9904fe0cd0aad3fe8b5d96d91fc9223</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Child</topic><topic>Dental models</topic><topic>Dentition</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Maxilla</topic><topic>Models, Dental</topic><topic>open bite</topic><topic>Open Bite - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Open Bite - therapy</topic><topic>Palate</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Registration</topic><topic>Reproducibility</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Teeth</topic><topic>Three‐dimensional imaging</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Aliaga‐Del Castillo, Aron</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vilanova, Lorena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janson, Guilherme</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arriola‐Guillén, Luis Ernesto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garib, Daniela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miranda, Felicia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Massaro, Camila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yatabe, Marilia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cevidanes, Lucia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruellas, Antonio Carlos</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Orthodontics & craniofacial research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Aliaga‐Del Castillo, Aron</au><au>Vilanova, Lorena</au><au>Janson, Guilherme</au><au>Arriola‐Guillén, Luis Ernesto</au><au>Garib, Daniela</au><au>Miranda, Felicia</au><au>Massaro, Camila</au><au>Yatabe, Marilia</au><au>Cevidanes, Lucia</au><au>Ruellas, Antonio Carlos</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison and reproducibility of three methods for maxillary digital dental model registration in open bite patients</atitle><jtitle>Orthodontics & craniofacial research</jtitle><addtitle>Orthod Craniofac Res</addtitle><date>2022-05</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>269</spage><epage>279</epage><pages>269-279</pages><issn>1601-6335</issn><eissn>1601-6343</eissn><abstract>Objective
To compare and assess the reproducibility of 3 methods for registration of maxillary digital dental models in patients with anterior open bite.
Settings and sample population
Digital dental models of 16 children with an anterior open bite in the mixed dentition were obtained before (T1) and after 12 months of treatment with bonded spurs (T2).
Methods
Landmarks were placed on all T2 models and 3 registration methods (R1, R2 and R3) were independently performed by 2 observers. R1 was based on 10 landmarks placed on posterior teeth. R2 was based on 5 landmarks on the palate (2 anterior, 2 posterior and 1 central). R3 used regions of interest around the 5 palatal landmarks used in R2. The differences between the registration methods were calculated by comparing the mean differences and standard deviations between the corresponding x, y and z coordinates of 6 corresponding landmarks in the T2 registered models. Repeated measures analysis of variance followed by post‐hoc Bonferroni tests were used for comparisons (P < .05). The agreement between methods and the intra and interobserver reproducibility were assessed with Bland‐Altman tests and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
Results
Comparisons of R2 with R3 methods showed greater agreement, mean differences ≤0.50 mm for all landmarks, than comparisons of R1 with R2, and R1 with R3, mean differences >0.50 mm for most of the y and z coordinates (P < .05). The R1 and R3 methods presented excellent intra and interobserver reproducibility and R2 method had moderate interobserver reproducibility.
Conclusions
Longitudinal assessments of open bite treatment using digital dental models could consider the posterior teeth and/or the palate as references. The R1 and R3 methods showed adequate reproducibility and yield different quantitative results. The choice will depend on the posterior teeth changes and dental models’ characteristics.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>34543518</pmid><doi>10.1111/ocr.12535</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8748-6714</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3963-1742</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9786-2253</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7575-1613</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2449-1620</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1601-6335 |
| ispartof | Orthodontics & craniofacial research, 2022-05, Vol.25 (2), p.269-279 |
| issn | 1601-6335 1601-6343 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8934310 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library All Journals |
| subjects | Child Dental models Dentition Humans Maxilla Models, Dental open bite Open Bite - diagnostic imaging Open Bite - therapy Palate Patients Registration Reproducibility Reproducibility of Results Teeth Three‐dimensional imaging |
| title | Comparison and reproducibility of three methods for maxillary digital dental model registration in open bite patients |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T15%3A28%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20and%20reproducibility%20of%20three%20methods%20for%20maxillary%20digital%20dental%20model%20registration%20in%20open%20bite%20patients&rft.jtitle=Orthodontics%20&%20craniofacial%20research&rft.au=Aliaga%E2%80%90Del%20Castillo,%20Aron&rft.date=2022-05&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=269&rft.epage=279&rft.pages=269-279&rft.issn=1601-6335&rft.eissn=1601-6343&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/ocr.12535&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2652742258%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2652742258&rft_id=info:pmid/34543518&rfr_iscdi=true |