PREDICTABILITY OF DIGITAL SET-UP IN ORTHODONTICS

Authors

  • Silvia Izabella POP “George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Târgu Mureș, Faculty of Dental Medicine
  • Marcela ZGARDAN George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Târgu Mureș, Faculty of Dental Medicine
  • Ana PROCOPCIUC “George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Târgu Mureș, Faculty of Dental Medicine
  • Bernadette KEREKES-MATHE “George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Târgu Mureș, Faculty of Dental Medicine
  • R.V. POP “Natural Smile Dental Clinic” Private practice

Abstract

The orthodontic setup is a three-dimensional simulation that allows the teeth to be aligned in the appropriate position according to a previously established treatment plan previewing the final result. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the digital orthodontic set-up by comparing it with the result of the orthodontic treatment. The secondary purpose is to compare the correlation between the parameters obtained after performing the digital setup with the analysis of the study models at the end of the orthodontic treatment. Materials and methods: The study models of 40 patients were digitized. In a subsequent phase, the digital set-up was performed using the BlueSky Plan software (Libertyville, IL United States) to obtain appropriate intermaxillary relations according to the treatment plan. Results: The intercanine and intermolar distances, and the length of the dental arches were measured both in the initial, final models, and after the set-up in order to be able to compare them. Statistically significant differences were observed between the intercanine width (p=0.007) and arch length (p=0.02) of the final models compared with the set-up models. Regarding the other evaluated parameters of the final models, although the values were decreased compared to the set-up models, the differences were not significant. Conclusions: the comparison made between the digital set-up and the patient’s final model gives confidence in choosing the setup as a reliable tool for treatment planning.

Author Biographies

  • Silvia Izabella POP, “George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Târgu Mureș, Faculty of Dental Medicine

    Orthodontic Department

  • Marcela ZGARDAN, George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Târgu Mureș, Faculty of Dental Medicine

    Orthodontic Department, Postgraduate Resident

  • Ana PROCOPCIUC, “George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Târgu Mureș, Faculty of Dental Medicine

    Department of Dental Surgery, Postgraduate Resident

  • Bernadette KEREKES-MATHE, “George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Târgu Mureș, Faculty of Dental Medicine

    Department of Morphology of teeth and dental arches

References

1. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Canova F, Oliva F, Beretta G, Dalessandri MD. Digital (R)Evolution: Open-Source Softwares for Orthodontics. Appl Sci 2021; 11: 6033.
2. Niu Y, Zeng Y, Zhang, Z, Xu W, Xiao L. Comparison of the transfer accuracy of two digital indirect bonding trays for labial bracket bonding. Angle Orthod 2021; 91: 67-73.
3. Oliva G, Huanca Ghislanzoni L, Dalessandri D, Silvestrini-Biavati A, Ugolini A. Palatal changes in crossbite patients treated with rapid maxillary expansion versus untreated ones: A geometric mor-phometric study. Orthod Craniofacia Res 2020; 23: 439-444.
4. Stucki S, Gkantidis N. Assessment of techniques used for superimposition of maxillary and mandibular 3D surface models to evaluate tooth movement: A systematic review. Eur. J. Orthod 2020; 42: 559-570.
5. Pazera C, Gkantidis N. Palatal rugae positional changes during orthodontic treatment of growing patients. Orthod. Craniofacia Res 2020.
6. Ghislanzoni L.H, Negrini S. Digital Lab Appliances: The Time Has Come. J Clin Orthod JCO 2020; 54: 562-569.
7. Magkavali-Trikka P, Halazonetis DJ, Athanasiou AE. Estimation of root inclination of anterior teeth from virtual study models: Accuracy of a commercial software. Prog Orthod 2019; 20: 43.
8. Yun D, Choi D-S, Jang I, Cha B-K. Clinical application of an intraoral scanner for serial evaluation of orthodontic tooth movement: A preliminary study. Korean J Orthod 2018; 48: 262-267.
9. Harold D Kesling. The diagnostic setup with consideration of the third dimension. Am J Orthodontics 1956; 10: 740-748.
10. Sunanda R, Kumar A. Diagnostic setup procedure simplified: a case report. Journal of Contemporary Orthodontics 2017; 56-60.
11. Camardella LT, et al. Virtual setup: application in orthodontic practice. J Orofac Orthop 2016; 77: 409-419.
12. Park TJ, Lee SH, Lee KS. A method for mandibular dental arch superimposition using 3D cone beam CT and orthodontic 3D digital model. Korean J Orthod 2012; 42: 169-181.
13. Larson BE, Vaubel CJ, Grunheid T. Effectiveness of computer-assisted orthodontic treatment tech-nology to achieve predicted outcomes. Angle Orthod 2013; 83: 557-562.
14. Takuya K, et al. Construction of orthodontic setup models on a computer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 141: 806-813.
15. Carrafiello G, et al. Comparative study of jaws with multislice computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography. Radiol Med 2010; 115: 600-611.
16. Baik HS, Kim SY. Facial soft-tissue changes in skeletal Class III orthognathic surgery patients analyzed with 3-dimensional laser scanning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138: 167-178.
17. Larson B.E, Sarver D.M. Contemporary Orthodontics 6-th edition. Elsevier, 2019; 145-247.
18. Barretoa M.S, Faberb J, Vogelc C.J, Telma M. Reliability of digital orthodontic setups. Angle Orthod 2016; 86: 255-259.
19. Im J, Cha JY, Lee KJ, Yu HS, Hwang CJ. Comparison of virtual and manual tooth setups with digital and plaster models in extraction cases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145: 434-442.
20. Noh H, Nabha W, Cho J, Hwang H. Registration accuracy in the integration of laser-scanned dental images into maxillofacial cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140: 585-591.
21. Abdelkarim A. Myths and facts of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics. J World Fed Orthod 2012; 13-18.
22. Kihara T, Tanimoto K, Michida M, Yoshimi Y, Nagasaki T. Construction of orthodontic setup models on a computer. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2012; 806-813.
23. Coskuner HG, Atik E, Kocadereli I. Effects of Three Different Orthodontic Treatment Methods on the Stability of Mandibular Incisor Alignment. The Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 2017; 41(6): 486-493.
24. Zhou X, Gan Y, Zhao Q, Xiong J, Xia Z. Simulation of orthodontic force of arch wire applied to full dentition using virtual bracket displacement method. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng 2019; 35(5): e3189.
25. Kyungjae H, Won-Hyeon K, Emmanuel E-A, Jong-Ho L, Bu-Kyu L, Bongju K. Efficient Design of a Clear Aligner Attachment to Induce Bodily Tooth Movement in Orthodontic Treatment Using Finite Element Analysis. Materials 2021; 14-17: 4926.

Additional Files

Published

2023-12-21