title: Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to plaster models and cone-beam computed tomography.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the accuracy of measurements obtained from the three-dimensional (3D) laser scans to those taken from the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and those obtained from plaster models.
  
  
  METHODS
  Eighteen different measurements, encompassing mesiodistal width of teeth and both maxillary and mandibular arch length and width, were selected using various landmarks. CBCT scans and plaster models were prepared from 60 patients. Plaster models were scanned using the Ortho Insight 3D laser scanner, and the selected landmarks were measured using its software. CBCT scans were imported and analyzed using the Avizo software, and the 26 landmarks corresponding to the selected measurements were located and recorded. The plaster models were also measured using a digital caliper. Descriptive statistics and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used to analyze the data.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The ICC result showed that the values obtained by the three different methods were highly correlated in all measurements, all having correlations>0.808. When checking the differences between values and methods, the largest mean difference found was 0.59 mm±0.38 mm.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In conclusion, plaster models, CBCT models, and laser-scanned models are three different diagnostic records, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. The present results showed that the laser-scanned models are highly accurate to plaster models and CBCT scans. This gives general clinicians an alternative to take into consideration the advantages of laser-scanned models over plaster models and CBCT reconstructions.
authors: a  Student, School of Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
authors: Jooseong
authors: J
authors: Kim
authors: Giseon
authors: G
authors: Heo
authors: Manuel O
authors: MO
authors: Lagravère
mesh_terms: D059925:Anatomic Landmarks / Q000033:anatomy & histology; D001641:Bicuspid / Q000033:anatomy & histology; D002508:Cephalometry / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D054893:Cone-Beam Computed Tomography / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D003724:Dental Arch / Q000033:anatomy & histology; D006801:Humans; D021621:Imaging, Three-Dimensional / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D007834:Lasers; D008334:Mandible / Q000033:anatomy & histology; D008437:Maxilla / Q000033:anatomy & histology; D003765:Models, Dental; D008963:Molar / Q000033:anatomy & histology
references: Angle Orthod. 2012 Nov;82(6):1098-106
references: 22530811
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Oct;130(4):485-91
references: 17045148
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Jul;134(1):112-6
references: 18617110
references: Angle Orthod. 2010 May;80(3):435-9
references: 20050733
references: Angle Orthod. 2004 Jun;74(3):298-303
references: 15264638
references: Braz Oral Res. 2009 Jul-Sep;23(3):288-95
references: 19893964
references: Aust Orthod J. 2009 Nov;25(2):97-103
references: 20043542
references: Eur J Orthod. 2013 Feb;35(1):1-6
references: 21427171
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Feb;137(2):259-65
references: 20152684
references: J Am Dent Assoc. 2010 Oct;141 Suppl 3:7S-13S
references: 20884934
references: Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011 Jan;40(1):24-34
references: 21159912
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Jun;129(6):794-803
references: 16769498
references: IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2001 Oct;20(10):1093-101
references: 11686444
references: J Orthod. 2008 Sep;35(3):191-201; discussion 175
references: 18809782
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Jul;136(1):16.e1-4; discussion 16
references: 19577140