Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 May;80(3):435-9.
doi: 10.2319/083109-491.1.

Evaluation of CBCT digital models and traditional models using the Little's Index

Chung How Kau  1 , Jay Littlefield, Neal Rainy, Jennifer T Nguyen, Ben Creed
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Evaluation of CBCT digital models and traditional models using the Little's Index

Chung How Kau et al. Angle Orthod. 2010 May.

Abstract

Objective: To determine if measurements obtained from digital models from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were comparable to the traditional method of digital study models by impressions.

Materials and methods: Digital models of 30 subjects were used. InVivoDental (Anatomage, San Jose, Calif) software was used to analyze CBCT scans taken by a Galileos cone beam scanner (Sirona, Charlotte, NC) with a field of view of 15 x 15 x 15 cm(3) and a voxel resolution of 0.125 mm. OrthoCAD (Cadent, Fairview, NJ) software was used to analyze impression scans of patients at different stages of orthodontic treatment. Impressions were taken using alginate and were mailed to OrthoCAD for digital conversion. The scans were then electronically returned in digital format for analysis.

Results: The maxillary mean scores for the Little's Index were 9.65 mm for digital models and 8.87 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The mandibular mean scores for the Little's Index were 6.41 mm for digital models and 6.27 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The mean overjet measurements were 3.32 mm for digital models and 3.52 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The overbite measurements were 2.29 mm for digital models and 2.26 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The paired t-test showed no statistical significance between the differences in all measurements.

Conclusions: CBCT digital models are as accurate as OrthoCAD digital models in making linear measurements for overjet, overbite, and crowding measurements.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Maxillary Little's measurements.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mandibular Little's measurements.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Berghagen N. Photogrammetric Principles Applied to Intraoral Radiodontia A Method for Diagnosis and Therapy in Odontology. Stockholm, Sweden: Springer; 1951.
    1. Kau C. H, Richmond S, Incrapera A, English J, Xia J. J. Three-dimensional surface acquisition systems for the study of facial morphology and their application to maxillofacial surgery. Int J Med Robot. 2007;3:97–110. - PubMed
    1. Berco M, Rigali P. H, Jr, Miner R. M, DeLuca S, Anderson N. K, Will L. A. Accuracy and reliability of linear cephalometric measurements from cone-beam computed tomography scans of a dry human skull. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136:17 e1–e9. - PubMed
    1. Leifert M, Leifert M, Efstratiadis S, Cangialosi T. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;7;136:16 e1–e4. - PubMed
    1. Zilberman O, Huggare J. A, Parikakis K. A. Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod. 2003;73:301–306. - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources