- Visibility 264 Views
- Downloads 226 Downloads
- Permissions
- DOI 10.18231/j.jco.v.9.i.3.10
-
CrossMark
- Citation
Orthodontics in 3D: Unveling the preciasion of printed model vs. Plaster traditions
- Author Details:
-
Prince Bedi *
-
Divya Shetty
-
Bhupender Singh
-
Ayushi Nagar
-
Payal Sharma
Introduction: Orthodontic treatment relies heavily on accurate diagnosis and treatment planning. Traditionally, study casts obtained from plaster models have been an essential component of orthodontic records. However, advancements in three-dimensional imaging and modeling have introduced digital alternatives, offering ease of access, storage, and transfer of patient information
Aim and Objectives: To compare the accuracy of linear measurements obtained from 3D printed models with those taken from plaster study models and identify the most reliable type of printed model.Materials and Method: The study was conducted on ten patients requiring fixed orthodontic treatment. Dental impressions were scanned using laser desktop scanners and intraoral scanning of patients maxillary dentition, and then resulting images were converted to stereolithography (STL) format for 3D printing. Linear measurements, including tooth size and arch width, were taken using a digital caliper on plaster, intraoral, and laser scanned printed models
Results: Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in tooth size and arch width measurements between plaster models and both types of 3D printed models (intraoral and laser scanned). The average differences in mesio-distal width measurements were found to be within clinically acceptable ranges
Conclusion: Three-dimensional imaging and 3D printing technologies have revolutionized orthodontics, providing accurate and reliable digital alternatives to traditional plaster models. The study findings support the use of 3D printed models for orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning, indicating their potential to replace plaster models in the future.
References
- Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011;14(1):1-16.
- Ferreira JB, Christovam IO, Alencar DS, da Motta AFJ, Mattos CT, Cury-Saramago. A. Accuracy and reproducibility of dental measurements on tomographic digital models: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017;46(7):20160455.
- El-Zanaty HM, El-Beialy AR, Abou El-Ezz AM, Attia KH, El-Bialy AR, Mostafa YA. Three-dimensional dental measurements: An alternative to plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(2):259-65.
- Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R, Zhurov AI. A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod. 2008;35(3):191-5.
- Oliveira G, Nguyen T, Jackson T, Broome a. Accuracy and precision of 3- dimensional printed dental models produced by different additive manufacturing technologies. 2019.
- Camardella LT, Ongkosuwito EM, Penning EW, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Vilella OV, Breuning KH. Accuracy and reliability of measurements performed using two different software programs on digital models generated using laser and computed tomography plaster model scanners. Korean J Orthod. 2020;50(1):13-25.
- Quimby ML, Vig KW, Rashid RG, Firestone AR. The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. Angle Orthod. 2004;74(3):298-303.
- Watanabe-Kanno GA, Abrão J, Miasiro Junior H, Sánchez-Ayala A, Lagravère MO. Reproducibility, reliability and validity of measurements obtained from Cecile3 digital models. Braz Oral Res. 2009;23(3):288-95.
- Horton HM, Miller JR, Gaillard PR, Larson BE. Technique comparison for efficient orthodontic tooth measurements using digital models. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(2):254-61.
- Creed B, Kau CH, English JD, Xia JJ, Lee RP. A Comparison of the Accuracy of Linear Measurements Obtained from Cone Beam Computerized Tomography Images and Digital Models. Semin Orthod. 2011;17(1):49-56.51
- Sousa MV, Vasconcelos EC, Janson G, Garib D, Pinzan A. Accuracy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;142(2):269-73.
- Abizadeh N, Moles DR, O'Neill J, Noar JH. Digital versus plaster study models: how accurate and reproducible are they? J Orthod. 2012;39(3):151-9.
- Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Tutein Nolthenius HE, 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.
- Tarazona B, Llamas JM, Cibrian R, Gandia JL, Paredes V. A comparison between dental measurements taken from CBCT models and those taken from a digital method. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35(1):1-6.
- Akyalcin S, Dyer DJ, English JD, Sar C. Comparison of 3- dimensional dental models from different sources: diagnostic accuracy and surface registration analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(6):831-7.
- Grünheid T, Patel N, De Felippe NL, Wey A, Gaillard PR, Larson BE. Accuracy, reproducibility, and time efficiency of dental measurements using different technologies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(2):157-64.
- de Waard O, Rangel FA, Fudalej PS, Bronkhorst EM, Kuijpers- Jagtman AM, Breuning KH. Reproducibility and accuracy of linear measurements on dental models derived from cone-beam computed tomography compared with digital dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146(3):328-36.
- Kim J, Heo G, Lagravère MO. Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to plaster models and cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(3):443-50.
- De Luca Canto G, Pachêco-Pereira C, Lagravere MO, Flores-Mir C, Major PW. Intra- arch dimensional measurement validity of laser- scanned digital dental models compared with the original plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(2):65-
- Reuschl RP, Heuer W, Stiesch M, Wenzel D, Dittmer MP. Reliability and validity of measurements on digital study models and plaster models. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(1):22- 26.52 355 Bedi et al. / Journal of Contemporary Orthodontics 2025;9(3):350–355
- Czarnota J, Hey J, Fuhrmann R. Measurements using orthodontic analysis software on digital models obtained by 3D scans of plaster casts : Intrarater reliability and validity. J Orofac Orthop. 2016;77(1):22-30.
- 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(4):534-41.
- Massaro, C., Losada, C., Cevidanes, L., Yatabe, M., Garib, D., Lauris, J. R. P., Ioshida, M., Rey, D., Alvarez, M. A., Benavides, E., Rios, H., Aristizabal, J. F., & Ruellas, A. C. Comparison of linear and angular changes assessed in digital dental models and cone- beam computed tomography. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2020;23(1):118-28.
- Yousefi F, Shokri A, Zahedi F, Farhadian M. Assessment of the accuracy of laser- scanned models and 3-dimensional rendered cone-beam computed tomographic images compared to digital caliper measurements on plaster casts. Imaging Sci Dent. 2021;51(4):429-38.
How to Cite This Article
Vancouver
Bedi P, Shetty D, Singh B, Nagar A, Sharma P. Orthodontics in 3D: Unveling the preciasion of printed model vs. Plaster traditions [Internet]. J Contemp Orthod. 2025 [cited 2025 Oct 06];9(3):350-355. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18231/j.jco.v.9.i.3.10
APA
Bedi, P., Shetty, D., Singh, B., Nagar, A., Sharma, P. (2025). Orthodontics in 3D: Unveling the preciasion of printed model vs. Plaster traditions. J Contemp Orthod, 9(3), 350-355. https://doi.org/10.18231/j.jco.v.9.i.3.10
MLA
Bedi, Prince, Shetty, Divya, Singh, Bhupender, Nagar, Ayushi, Sharma, Payal. "Orthodontics in 3D: Unveling the preciasion of printed model vs. Plaster traditions." J Contemp Orthod, vol. 9, no. 3, 2025, pp. 350-355. https://doi.org/10.18231/j.jco.v.9.i.3.10
Chicago
Bedi, P., Shetty, D., Singh, B., Nagar, A., Sharma, P.. "Orthodontics in 3D: Unveling the preciasion of printed model vs. Plaster traditions." J Contemp Orthod 9, no. 3 (2025): 350-355. https://doi.org/10.18231/j.jco.v.9.i.3.10