Comparación de dimensiones dentales en modelos desarrollados con procedimientos digitales y modelos en yeso
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2024.002Palabras clave:
Clorhexidina, Peróxido de hidrógeno, Anti-sépticos bucales, Periodontitis, Ultrasonido, Raspado dentalResumen
Objetivo: Este estudio tuvo como objetivo recopilar evidencia sobre la validez y confiabilidad de las mediciones obtenidas a partir de técnicas de impresión digital.
Materiales y Métodos: Este estudio comparativo se realizó en 31 pacientes. A todos los pacientes se les aplicó escáner intraoral. Para cada paciente, se tomó una impresión de alginato del maxilar superior y posteriormente se extrajo el modelo digital 3D mediante Tomografía computarizada de haz cónico (CBCT) dental. Para la preparación de los modelos de yeso se tomaron impresiones de alginato y se vertieron inmediatamente con yeso dental. En la siguiente etapa, se realizó una comparación entre el escáner intraoral, CBCT y los modelos de yeso en términos de tamaño de diente, ancho dental y dimensiones intraarcada.
Discusión: Se encontró que la apariencia microscópica de las células fusiformes era comparable en ambos grupos. Los resultados de la citometría de flujo demostraron expresiones comparables en ambos grupos, siendo las muestras positivas para CD90, CD73, CD105, HLA ABC y negativas para CD34, CD45 y HLA DR. Hubo variaciones en la expresión de los marcadores cuando se evaluaron los potenciales de diferenciación.
Conclusión: Los sistemas digitales como el escáner intraoral y el CBCT son aceptables para uso clínico en términos de precisión.
Descargas
Citas
Petrescu SM, ?uculin? MJ, Popa DL, Du?? A, S?lan AI, Voinea Georgescu R, Diaconu OA, Turcu AA, Mocanu H, Nicola AG, Dasc?lu IT. Modeling and Simulating an Orthodontic System Using Virtual Methods. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12(5):1296. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12051296. PMID: 35626452; PMCID: PMC9141121.
Tepedino M, Cornelis MA, Chimenti C, Cattaneo PM. Correlation between tooth size-arch length discrepancy and interradicular distances measured on CBCT and panoramic radiograph: an evaluation for miniscrew insertion. Dent Press J Orthodont. 2018;23:39. e1-. e13. https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.23.5.39.e1-13.onl
Kumar KA, Gupta S, Sandhu H. Determination of mesiodistal width of maxillary anterior teeth using inner canthal distance. Medical J Armed Forces India. 2015;71:S376-S81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2014.08.002
Julyan J, Julyan J, De Lange J. Comparison of three different instruments for orthodontic study model analysis. South African Dental J. 2020;75(6):298-302. https://doi.org/10.17159/2519-0105/2020/v75no6a2
Kasparova M, Grafova L, Dvorak P, Dostalova T, Prochazka A, Eliasova H, Prusa J, Kakawand S. Possibility of reconstruction of dental plaster cast from 3D digital study models. Biomed Eng Online. 2013;12:49. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-925X-12-49. PMID: 23721330; PMCID: PMC3686614.
Pachêco-Pereira C, De Luca Canto G, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Variation of orthodontic treatment decision-making based on dental model type: A systematic review. The Angle Orthodontist. 2014;85(3):501-9. https://doi.org/10.2319/051214-343.1
Rebong RE, Stewart KT, Utreja A, Ghoneima AA. Accuracy of three-dimensional dental resin models created by fused deposition modeling, stereolithography, and Polyjet prototype technologies: A comparative study. The Angle Orthodont. 2018;88(3):363-9.
https://doi.org/10.2319/071117-460.1
Cantín M, Muñoz M, Olate S. Generation of 3D tooth models based on three-dimensional scanning to study the morphology of permanent teeth. Int J Morphol. 2015;33(2):782-7. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022015000200057
De Luca Canto G, Pachêco?Pereira C, Lagravere M, Flores?Mir C, Major P. Intra?arch dimensional measurement validity of laser?scanned digital dental models compared with the original plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofacial Res. 2015;18(2):65-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12068
Erten O, Y?lmaz BN. Three-dimensional imaging in orthodontics. Turkish J Orthodont. 2018;31(3):86. https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2018.17041
Christopoulou I, Kaklamanos EG, Makrygiannakis MA, Bitsanis I, Perlea P, Tsolakis AI. Intraoral Scanners in Orthodontics: A Critical Review. Inter J Environment Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1407. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031407
Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x
Grünheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146(5):673-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023
Impellizzeri A, Horodynski M, De Stefano A, Palaia G, Polimeni A, Romeo U, Guercio-Monaco E, Galluccio G. CBCT and Intra-Oral Scanner: The Advantages of 3D Technologies in Orthodontic Treatment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(24):9428. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249428. PMID: 33339197; PMCID: PMC7765620.
Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Nolthenius HET, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143(1):140-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.06.018
Farzanegan F, Zarch SHH, Mobasheri MF, Rangrazi A. Evaluation of the relationship between morphology, volume, and density of the mandible and dentofacial vertical dimension using cone beam computed tomography. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clin Integr. 2020;19. https://doi.org/10.4034/PBOCI.2019.191.128
Alassiry AM. CLINICAL ASPECTS OF DIGITAL THREE-DIMENSIONAL INTRAORAL SCANNING IN ORTHODONTICS-A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. The Saudi Dent J. 2023.
Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129(6):794-803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.08.023
Torassian G, Kau CH, English JD, Powers J, Bussa HI, Marie Salas-Lopez A, et al. Digital models vs plaster models using alginate and alginate substitute materials. The Angle Orthodontist. 2010;80(4):662-9. https://doi.org/10.2319/072409-413.1
Cuperus AMR, Harms MC, Rangel FA, Bronkhorst EM, Schols JG, Breuning KH. Dental models made with an intraoral scanner: a validation study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;142(3):308-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.03.031
Cerroni S, Pasquantonio G, Condò R, Cerroni L. Orthodontic fixed appliance and periodontal status: An updated systematic review. Open Dent J 2018;12:614. https://doi.org/10.2174/1745017901814010614
Proffit WR, Fields Jr HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2006.
Kumar AA, Phillip A, Kumar S, Rawat A, Priya S, Kumaran V. Digital model as an alternative to plaster model in assessment of space analysis. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2015;7(Suppl 2):S465. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.163506
Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(1):16. e1-e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.019
Shellhart WC, Lange DW, Kluemper GT, Hicks EP, Kaplan AL. Reliability of the Bolton tooth-size analysis when applied to crowded dentitions. The Angle Orthodontist. 1995;65(5):327-34.
Fleming P, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofacial Res. 2011;14(1):1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01503.x
Becker K, Schmücker U, Schwarz F, Drescher D. Accuracy and eligibility of CBCT to digitize dental plaster casts. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2018;22(4):1817-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2277-x
Robbena J, Muallahb J, Wesemannc C, Nowakd R, Mahe J, Pospiechf P, et al. Suitability and accuracy of CBCT model scan: an in vitro study Eignung und Genauigkeit von DVT-Aufnahmen für die Digitalisierung von Gipsmodellen: Eine In-vitro-Untersuchung. Int J Comput Dent. 2017;20(4):363-75.
Vögtlin C, Schulz G, Jäger K, Müller B. Comparing the accuracy of master models based on digital intra-oral scanners with conventional plaster casts. Physics in Medicine. 2016;1:20-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phmed.2016.04.002
Al-Mashraqi AA, Alhammadi MS, Gadi AA, Altharawi RA, Zamim KAH, Halboub E. Accuracy and reproducibility of permanent dentitions and dental arch measurements: comparing three different digital models with a plaster study cast. Int J Comput Dent. 2021;24(4):353-62.
Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. European journal of orthodontics. 2016;38(4):422-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv077
Khraishi H, Duane B. Evidence for use of intraoral scanners under clinical conditions for obtaining full-arch digital impressions is insufficient. Evidence-based dentistry. 2017;18(1):24-5. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401224
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Este es una Revista de acceso abierto distribuido bajo los términos de Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). Se permite el uso, distribución o reproducción en otros foros, siempre que se acredite al autor o autores originales y a los propietarios de los derechos de autor y se cite la publicación original en esta revista, de acuerdo con la práctica académica aceptada. No se permite ningún uso, distribución o reproducción que no cumpla con estos términos. © 2023.
