Scholarlink

Objectives <p>To compare the agreement of three digital model registration methods of different software packages in measuring angular and linear tooth movements obtained with Clear Aligner Treatment Therapy.</p> Methods <p>Thirty-two maxillary and mandibular intraoral pre-treatment (T1) and progress (T2) scans of patients undergoing clear aligner therapy were randomly selected, converted to STL files and exported to Geomagic, OrthoAnalyzer, and Compare model registration software packages. The amount of tooth movement of all maxillary and mandibular teeth was calculated in six degrees of freedom.</p> Results <p>The angular and linear change in tooth position between T1 and T2 was compared using three different digital model registration software packages. Continuous data was expressed as mean and standard deviation. Intra class Correlation Coefficient for agreement between software programs was used. Significance of the obtained results was expressed at <i>p</i> ≤ 0.01. Differences larger than 0.5&#xa0;mm for linear measurements and 2º for angular measurements were considered clinically relevant. Geomagic and Compare demonstrated excellent consistency in most dimensions (ICC &gt; 0.90), including maxillary tip (ICC = 0.929) and mandibular tip (ICC = 0.912); however, combinations involving OrthoAnalyzer showed the poorest performance in mandibular torque measurements (ICC = 0.484–0.493), with OrthoAnalyzer’s mean values (2.72 ± 4.30°) significantly higher than the other two software platforms; in the OG direction, all combinations involving OrthoAnalyzer showed ICC &lt; 0.5, indicating ‘poor reliability.</p> Conclusions <p>Geomagic and Compare software demonstrated excellent consistency in measuring tooth movements, whereas OrthoAnalyzer consistently showed poor reliability for mandibular torque (ICC &lt; 0.5) and occlusogingival movements (ICC &lt; 0.5). These differences exceeded the clinical thresholds (0.5&#xa0;mm for translations, 2° for angular changes) and highlight the importance of cautious interpretation when comparing results across platforms.</p> Clinical significance <p>The use of CAT is exponentially growing in Orthodontics. Studies that compare treatment accuracy by superimposing two digital models, generate values based on a digital registration software. Does the software employed; cause a difference to the values generated, and subsequently our interpretation of accuracy of a given system? This study aims to address this knowledge gap.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The influence of different digital registration methods on measurement accuracy of clear aligner treatment outcomes

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月26日

查看全文
  • Samar M. Adel,
  • Nadia El-Harouni,
  • Hassan E. Kassem,
  • Abbas R. Zaher,
  • Nikhillesh Vaiid

摘要

Objectives

To compare the agreement of three digital model registration methods of different software packages in measuring angular and linear tooth movements obtained with Clear Aligner Treatment Therapy.

Methods

Thirty-two maxillary and mandibular intraoral pre-treatment (T1) and progress (T2) scans of patients undergoing clear aligner therapy were randomly selected, converted to STL files and exported to Geomagic, OrthoAnalyzer, and Compare model registration software packages. The amount of tooth movement of all maxillary and mandibular teeth was calculated in six degrees of freedom.

Results

The angular and linear change in tooth position between T1 and T2 was compared using three different digital model registration software packages. Continuous data was expressed as mean and standard deviation. Intra class Correlation Coefficient for agreement between software programs was used. Significance of the obtained results was expressed at p ≤ 0.01. Differences larger than 0.5 mm for linear measurements and 2º for angular measurements were considered clinically relevant. Geomagic and Compare demonstrated excellent consistency in most dimensions (ICC > 0.90), including maxillary tip (ICC = 0.929) and mandibular tip (ICC = 0.912); however, combinations involving OrthoAnalyzer showed the poorest performance in mandibular torque measurements (ICC = 0.484–0.493), with OrthoAnalyzer’s mean values (2.72 ± 4.30°) significantly higher than the other two software platforms; in the OG direction, all combinations involving OrthoAnalyzer showed ICC < 0.5, indicating ‘poor reliability.

Conclusions

Geomagic and Compare software demonstrated excellent consistency in measuring tooth movements, whereas OrthoAnalyzer consistently showed poor reliability for mandibular torque (ICC < 0.5) and occlusogingival movements (ICC < 0.5). These differences exceeded the clinical thresholds (0.5 mm for translations, 2° for angular changes) and highlight the importance of cautious interpretation when comparing results across platforms.

Clinical significance

The use of CAT is exponentially growing in Orthodontics. Studies that compare treatment accuracy by superimposing two digital models, generate values based on a digital registration software. Does the software employed; cause a difference to the values generated, and subsequently our interpretation of accuracy of a given system? This study aims to address this knowledge gap.