METHODS: Forty direct impressions of a mandibular reference model fitted with six dental implants and multibase abutments were made using VPES and PE, and implant casts were poured (N = 20). The VPES and PE groups were split into four subgroups of five each, based on splinting type: (a) no splinting; (b) bite registration polyether; (c) bite registration addition silicone; and (d) autopolymerizing acrylic resin. The accuracy of implant-abutment replica positions was calculated on the experimental casts, in terms of interimplant distances in the x, y, and z-axes, using a coordinate measuring machine; values were compared with those measured on the reference model. Data were analyzed using non-parametrical Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests at α = .05.
RESULTS: The differences between the two impression materials, VPES and PE, regardless of splinting type, were not statistically significant (P>.05). Non-splinting and splinting groups were also not significantly different for both PE and VPES (P>.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of VPES impression material seemed comparable with PE for multi-implant abutment-level impressions. Splinting had no effect on the accuracy of implant impressions.
METHODS: Fifty digital models were scanned from the same plaster models. Arch and tooth size measurements were made by 2 operators, twice. Calibration was done on 10 sets of models and checked using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Data were analyzed by error variances, repeatability coefficient, repeated-measures analysis of variance, and Bland-Altman plots.
RESULTS: Error variances ranged between 0.001 and 0.044 mm for the digital caliper method, and between 0.002 and 0.054 mm for the 3D software method. Repeated-measures analysis of variance showed small but statistically significant differences (P <0.05) between the repeated measurements in the arch and buccolingual planes (0.011 and 0.008 mm, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between methods and between operators. Bland-Altman plots showed that the mean biases were close to zero, and the 95% limits of agreement were within ±0.50 mm. Repeatability coefficients for all measurements were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: Measurements made on models scanned by the 3D structured-light scanner were in good agreement with those made on conventional plaster models and were, therefore, clinically acceptable.
METHODS: The Z Printer 450 (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC) reprinted 10 sets of models for each category of crowding (mild, moderate, and severe) scanned using a structured-light scanner (Maestro 3D, AGE Solutions, Pisa, Italy). Stone and RP models were measured using digital calipers for tooth sizes in the mesiodistal, buccolingual, and crown height planes and for arch dimension measurements. Bland-Altman and paired t test analyses were used to assess agreement and accuracy. Clinical significance was set at ±0.50 mm.
RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis showed the mean bias of measurements between the models to be within ±0.15 mm (SD, ±0.40 mm), but the 95% limits of agreement exceeded the cutoff point of ±0.50 mm (lower range, -0.81 to -0.41 mm; upper range, 0.34 to 0.76 mm). Paired t tests showed statistically significant differences for all planes in all categories of crowding except for crown height in the moderate crowding group and arch dimensions in the mild and moderate crowding groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The rapid prototyping models were not clinically comparable with conventional stone models regardless of the degree of crowding.
METHODS: A sample of 111 plaster study models of Down syndrome (DS) patients were digitized using a blue light three-dimensional (3D) scanner. Digital and manual measurements of defined parameters were performed using Geomagic analysis software (Geomagic Studio 2014 software, 3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) on digital models and with a digital calliper (Tuten, Germany) on plaster study models. Both measurements were repeated twice to validate the intraexaminer reliability based on intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) using the independent t test and Pearson's correlation, respectively. The Bland-Altman method of analysis was used to evaluate the agreement of the measurement between the digital and plaster models.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were found between the manual and digital methods when measuring the arch width, arch length, and space analysis. In addition, all parameters showed a significant correlation coefficient (r ≥ 0.972; p
DESIGN: Retrospective observational study.
SETTING: Two regional cleft-referral centers.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In the current study, 101 pairs of dental models of non-syndromic CUCLP patients were retrieved from hospital archives. Each occlusal relationship from central incisor till the first permanent molars were scored except the lateral incisor. Sum of 10 occlusal relationships in each study sample gave a total occlusion score. The primary outcome was the mean total occlusion score.
RESULTS: According to MHB, a mean (standard deviation) total occlusion score of -8.92 (6.89) was determined. Based on treatment outcome, 66 cases were favorable (grades 1, 2, and 3) and 35 cases were unfavorable (grades 4 and 5). Chi-square tests indicated, difference of cheiloplasty ( P = .001) and palatoplasty ( P < .001) statistically significant. Five variables-gender, family history of cleft, cleft side, cheiloplasty, and palatoplasty-were analyzed with a logistic regression model.
CONCLUSIONS: Final model indicated that cases treated with modified Millard technique (cheiloplasty) and Veau-Wardill-Kilner method (palatoplasty) had higher odds of unfavorable treatment outcome.
METHODS: Six master dies were duplicated from the prepared maxillary first premolar tooth using nonprecious metal alloy (Wiron 99). Thirty copings (Procera AllCeram) of 0.6-mm thickness were manufactured. Three types of luting media were used: zinc phosphate cement (Elite), glass ionomer cement (Fuji I), and dual-cured composite resin cement (Panavia F). Ten copings were cemented with each type. Two master dies were used for each group, and each of them was used to lute five copings. All groups were cemented according to manufacturer's instructions and received a static load of 5 kg during cementation. After 24 hours of distilled water storage at 37 degrees C, the copings were vertically compressed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min.
RESULTS: ANOVA revealed significant differences in the load at fracture among the three groups (p < 0.001). The fracture strength results showed that the mean fracture strength of zinc phosphate cement (Elite), glass ionomer cement (Fuji I), and resin luting cement (Panavia F) were 1091.9 N, 784.8 N, and 1953.5 N, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Different luting agents have an influence on the fracture resistance of Procera AllCeram copings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 64 sets of digitised maxilla and mandible dental casts obtained from a sample of dental arch with normal occlusion. For human evaluation, a convenient sample of orthodontic practitioners ranked the photo images of dental cast from the most tapered to the less tapered (square). In the mathematical analysis, dental arches were interpolated using the fourth-order polynomial equation with millimetric acetate paper and AutoCAD software. Finally, the relations between human evaluation and mathematical objective analyses were evaluated.
RESULTS: Human evaluations were found to be generally in agreement, but only at the extremes of tapered and square arch forms; this indicated general human error and observer bias. The two methods used to plot the arch form were comparable.
CONCLUSION: The use of fourth-order polynomial equation may be facilitative in obtaining a smooth curve, which can produce a template for individual arch that represents all potential tooth positions for the dental arch.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The samples were randomly selected from different states of Pakistan. Total 7168 variables were measured on plaster dental casts (128) and SM digital dental models (128) according to the selection criteria. For IMTSD, the 6 variable measured as for anterior tooth size (maxilla, mandibular), overall tooth size (maxilla, mandibular), Bolton's anterior ratios (BAR), and Bolton's overall ratios (BOR). The independent t-test and ANOVA were used for statistical analyses.
RESULTS: Significant sexual disparities in the sum of anterior tooth size and overall tooth size via DC and SM methods. No significant sexual disparities for BAR and BOR. No statistically significant differences were found in BAR and BOR between DC and SM. No significant differences were found on IMTSD ratio among different arch length and arch perimeters groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Norms were developed based on DC and SM for IMTSD. Sexual disparities were observed in the sum of teeth size. However, no significant differences in BAR and BOR for IMTSD between the two methods.