Comparison between orthodontic measurements taken from Cone-beam Computed tomography (CBCT) and digital models after Enmasse retraction in orthodontic patients with maxillary protrusion.

Authors

amr M. attia, a Resident, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Future University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt.Follow
amr R. el-beialy, Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.Follow
heba m. dehis, Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry,Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.Follow
yehya A. Moustafa, Professor and Chairman, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Future University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt.Follow

ORCID

ID: 0009-0004-7207-4583

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and reliability in measuring anchorage loss, molar rotation, and total amount of retraction using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and to compare them with the same measurements obtained using digitally scanned dental models. Materials and methods: 24 patients requiring comprehensive orthodontic treatment including extraction of 1st premolars with maximum anchorage using enmasse retraction. CBCTs were undertaken on the same 24 patients using InVivoDental software for measurement. The digital cast was made using alginate impressions, from which virtual 3D models will be created and measured using 3Shape analyzer software. Orthodontic measurements will be obtained from both the CBCT and the digital dental casts using standardized software. Three orthodontists will independently measure these parameters to evaluate inter- and intra-examiner reliability. Results: Preliminary results indicate a high level of agreement between orthodontic measurements acquired from CBCT and digital casts in the assessment of anchorage loss, molar rotation, and total amount of retraction. The ICC values revealed strong intra-examiner and inter-examiner reliability between the two measurement methods. Conclusion: This study supports the comparability of orthodontic measurements acquired from digital casts and CBCT in assessing anchorage loss, molar rotation, and the total amount of retraction

Recommended Citation

1. El-Zanaty HM, El-Beialy AR, Abou El-Ezz AM, Attia KH, El-Bialy AR, Mostafa YA. Three-dimensional dental measurements: An alternative to plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137:259–65. 2. Kau CH, Littlefield J, Rainy N, Nguyen JT, Creed B. Evaluation of CBCT digital models and traditional models using the Little’s index. Angle Orthod 2010, 80:435–439. 3. Gül AN, Karsli E, Kurt G. Comparison of dental measurements between conventional plaster models, digital models obtained by impression scanning and plaster model scanning. International Orthodontics. 2019;17(1):151-158. 4. Asquith J, Gillgrass T, Mossey P. Three-dimensional imaging of orthodontic models: a pilot study. Eur. J orthod. 2007;29(5):517-522. 5. Alcan T., Ceylanoglu C., Baysal B. The relationship between digital model accuracy and time-dependent deformation of alginate impressions. Angle orthod.2009;79:30–36 6. Lippold C, Kirschneck C, Schreiber K, et al. Methodological accuracy of digital and manual model analysis in orthodontics – A retrospective clinical study. Computers in Biology and Medicine. 2015;62:103-109. 7. Distefano S, Cannarozzo MG, Spagnuolo G, Bucci MB, Lo Giudice R. The “Dedicated” C.B.C.T. in Dentistry. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2023;20(11). 8. Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Sanderink G. Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. Eur. J orthod. 2009;31(2):129-134. 9. Moshiri M, Scarfe WC, Hilgers ML, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG. Accuracy of linear measurements from imaging plate and lateral cephalometric images derived from cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(4):550-560. 10. Periago DR, Scarfe WC, Moshiri M, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG. Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. The Angle orthod. 2008;78(3):387-395. 11. Massaro C, Losada C, Cevidanes L, et al. Comparison of linear and angular changes assessed in digital dental models and cone-beam computed tomography. Orthodontics & craniofacial research. 2020;23(1):118-128. 12. Dinçer M, Gülşen a, Türk T. The retraction of upper incisors with the PG retraction system. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22:23–41. 13. Xu TM, Zhang X, Oh HS, Boyd RL, Korn EL, Baumrind S. Randomized clinical trial comparing control of maxillary anchorage with 2 retraction techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. Published online 2010;138:544.e1–e9. 14. Al-Sibaie S, Hajeer MY. Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod. 2014 Jun;36(3):275-83. 15. Moreira CR, Sales MAO, Lopes PML, Cavalcanti MGP. Assessment of linear and angular measurements on three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomographic images. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics. 2009;108(3):430-436. 16. El-Beialy AR, Fayed MS, El-Bialy AM, Mostafa YA. Accuracy and reliability of cone-beam computed tomography measurements: Influence of head orientation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Aug;140(2):157-65. 17. Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi CL. Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Feb;149(2):161-70. 18. Tarazona-Álvarez P, Romero-Millán J, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Fuster-Torres MÁ, Tarazona B, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Comparative study of mandibular linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography and digital calipers. Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry. 2014;6(3):e271-4. 19. Lagravère MO, Carey J, Toogood RW, Major PW. Three-dimensional accuracy of measurements made with software on cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(1):112-116. 20. Ballrick JW, Palomo JM, Ruch E, Amberman BD, Hans MG. Image distortion and spatial resolution of a commercially available cone-beam computed tomography machine. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(4):573-582. 21. Liu Y, Mah J, Xu T min. [Validity of tooth volume determinations using cone beam computed tomography]. Beijing da xue xue bao Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University Health sciences. 2010;42(1):98-102. 22. Baumgaertel S, Palomo JM, Palomo L, Hans MG. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2009;136(1):18-19. 23. Abdelkarim A. Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in Orthodontics. Dentistry journal. 2019;7(3).