Digital Dental Models: Is Photogrammetry an Alternative to Dental Extraoral and Intraoral Scanners?
dental extraoral laboratory scanner
digital dental model
digital dentistry
intraoral scanner
photogrammetry
volumetric analysis
Journal
Dentistry journal
ISSN: 2304-6767
Titre abrégé: Dent J (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101716125
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Feb 2022
07 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
22
12
2021
revised:
28
01
2022
accepted:
30
01
2022
entrez:
24
2
2022
pubmed:
25
2
2022
medline:
25
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
3D models are nowadays part of daily clinical practice. Photogrammetry is a brand-new method for transforming small objects into 3D models while keeping their original shape and size. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, in terms of precision and trueness, of a digital dental model acquired with photogrammetry compared with those obtained using extraoral scanners and intraoral scanners, starting from the same plaster model. A plaster model was converted into a digital model using photogrammetry, an extraoral scanner and an intraoral scanner. Different references were measured twice at a distance of 30 min for each model, on the digital models using the software Blender and on the plaster model using a calibre. The Interclass Correlation Coefficient was calculated for each pair of measurements. A volumetric analysis was performed by superimposing the digital models. The coefficient of variation was calculated. A two-way ANOVA test was conducted. For each reference, the coefficient of variation was less than 3%, and the two ANOVA tests resulted in a non-significant value in both cases ( Photogrammetry seems to be a good method for acquiring digital models starting from a plaster model, all the methods tested seem to be good for obtaining an accurate three-dimensional digital model. Other studies are needed to evaluate clinical efficacy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
3D models are nowadays part of daily clinical practice. Photogrammetry is a brand-new method for transforming small objects into 3D models while keeping their original shape and size. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, in terms of precision and trueness, of a digital dental model acquired with photogrammetry compared with those obtained using extraoral scanners and intraoral scanners, starting from the same plaster model.
METHODS
METHODS
A plaster model was converted into a digital model using photogrammetry, an extraoral scanner and an intraoral scanner. Different references were measured twice at a distance of 30 min for each model, on the digital models using the software Blender and on the plaster model using a calibre. The Interclass Correlation Coefficient was calculated for each pair of measurements. A volumetric analysis was performed by superimposing the digital models. The coefficient of variation was calculated. A two-way ANOVA test was conducted.
RESULTS
RESULTS
For each reference, the coefficient of variation was less than 3%, and the two ANOVA tests resulted in a non-significant value in both cases (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Photogrammetry seems to be a good method for acquiring digital models starting from a plaster model, all the methods tested seem to be good for obtaining an accurate three-dimensional digital model. Other studies are needed to evaluate clinical efficacy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35200249
pii: dj10020024
doi: 10.3390/dj10020024
pmc: PMC8871120
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 Sep-Oct;30(5):1047-53
pubmed: 26394340
BMC Oral Health. 2015 Nov 27;15(1):151
pubmed: 26613798
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Oct;28(10):1318-1323
pubmed: 27596805
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011 Feb;14(1):1-16
pubmed: 21205164
BMC Oral Health. 2017 Dec 12;17(1):149
pubmed: 29233132
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Jul;124(1):101-5
pubmed: 12867904
J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Feb;109(2):121-8
pubmed: 23395338
Med Hypotheses. 2019 Jul;128:43-49
pubmed: 31203907
J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Jul;126(1):110-114
pubmed: 32665118
J Craniofac Surg. 2020 Sep;31(6):1578-1582
pubmed: 32282669
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2015 Jan-Feb;35(1):115-21
pubmed: 25734714
J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2019 Jan-Feb;33(1 Suppl. 1):49-53
pubmed: 30966732
J Prosthodont Res. 2017 Dec;61(4):363-370
pubmed: 27771189
BMC Oral Health. 2014 Jan 30;14:10
pubmed: 24479892
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994 Mar;5(1):30-6
pubmed: 8038342
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2020 Oct;173(2):381-392
pubmed: 32748988
J Craniofac Surg. 2010 Sep;21(5):1393-9
pubmed: 20856027
Int J Prosthodont. 2016 Jan-Feb;29(1):71-3
pubmed: 26757333
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 22;12(6):e0178858
pubmed: 28640827
Int Dent J. 2006 Oct;56(5):301-9
pubmed: 17069074
J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Mar;115(3):313-20
pubmed: 26548890
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Sep;144(3):471-8
pubmed: 23992820
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Oct;25(10):1113-8
pubmed: 23941118
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2014 May;154(1):152-8
pubmed: 24711122
Forensic Sci Int. 2011 Apr 15;207(1-3):127-34
pubmed: 20951517
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Dec;26(12):1430-5
pubmed: 25179680
J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Mar;125(3):470-478
pubmed: 32386912