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
. 2022 Nov 1;92(6):722-727.
doi: 10.2319/021122-128.1.

Accuracy of three-dimensional printed models derived from cone-beam computed tomography

Joshua M Ferraro, Jacob Falter, Sanghee Lee, Keiichiro Watanabe, Tai-Hsien Wu, Do-Gyoon Kim, Ching-Chang Ko, Eiji Tanaka, Toru Deguchi

Accuracy of three-dimensional printed models derived from cone-beam computed tomography

Joshua M Ferraro et al. Angle Orthod. .

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) printed models fabricated from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of human mandibular dry skulls in comparison with models derived from intraoral scanner (IOS) data.

Materials and methods: Six human mandibular dry skulls were scanned by IOS and CBCT. Digital models (DMs) constructed from the IOS and CBCT data were fabricated physically using a 3D printer. The width and thickness of individual teeth and intercanine and molar widths were measured using a digital caliper. The accuracy of the DMs was compared between IOS and CBCT. Paired t-tests were used for intergroup comparisons.

Results: All intraclass correlation coefficient values for the three measurements (mesial-distal, buccal-lingual, width) exceeded 0.9. For the mandibular teeth, there were significant discrepancies in model accuracy between the IOS (average discrepancies of 0.18 ± 0.08 mm and 0.16 ± 0.12 mm for width and thickness, respectively) and CBCT (0.28 ± 0.07 mm for width, 0.37 ± 0.2 mm for thickness; P < .01). Intercanine (P = .38) and molar widths (P = .41) showed no significant difference between groups.

Conclusions: There was a statistically significant difference in the accuracy of DMs obtained from CBCT and IOS; however, this did not seem to result in any important clinical difference. CBCT could be routinely used as an orthodontic diagnostic tool and for appliance construction.

Keywords: 3D printed model; CBCT.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Color map superimposition between IOS and CBCT DMs. Notice the deviation from 0.5–1.0 mm (arrowhead) mainly at the molar area.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Canine and molar width (red line) was measured from the mandibular dry skulls (A), printed IOS DMs (B), and CBCT DMs (C).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. 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;146:673–682. - PubMed
    1. Burzynski JA, Firestone AR, Beck FM, Fields HW, Jr, Deguchi T. Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: time and patient satisfaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop . 2018;153:534–541. - PubMed
    1. Im J, Cha JY, Lee KJ, Yu HS, Hwang CJ. Comparison of virtual and manual tooth setups with digital and plaster models in extraction cases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop . 2014;145:434–442. - PubMed
    1. Chaudhary V, Batra P, Sharma K, Raghavan S, Gandhi V, Srivastava A. A comparative assessment of transfer accuracy of two indirect bonding techniques in patients undergoing fixed mechanotherapy: a randomised clinical trial. J Orthod . 2021;48:13–23. - PubMed
    1. Hoffmann L, Sabbagh H, Wichelhaus A, Kessler A. Bracket transfer accuracy with two different three-dimensional printed transfer trays vs silicone transfer trays. Angle Orthod . 2022;92(3):364–371. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources