Impact of the superimposition methods and the designated comparison area on accuracy analyses in dentate models

Abstract

Objectives: To measure the impact of superimposition methods and the designated comparison area on accuracy analyses of dentate models using an ISO-recommended 3-dimensional (3D) metrology-grade inspection software (Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems; Rock Hill, South Carolina; USA).

Materials and methods: A dentate maxillary typodont scanned with a desktop scanner (E4; 3 Shape; Copenhagen; Denmark) and an intraoral scanner (Trios 4; 3 Shape; Copenhagen; Denmark) was used as reference. Eight groups were created based on the core features of each superimposition method: landmark-based alignment (G1); partial area-based alignment (G2); entire tooth area-based alignment (G3); double alignment combining landmark-based alignment with entire tooth area-based alignment (G4); double alignment combining partial area-based alignment with entire tooth area-based alignment (G5); initial automated quick pre-alignment (G6); initial automated precise pre-alignment (G7); and entire model area-based alignment (G8). Diverse variations of each alignment and two regions for accuracy analyses (teeth surface or full model surface) were tested, resulting in a total of thirty-two subgroups (n = 18). The alignment accuracy between experimental and reference meshes was quantified using root mean square (RMS) error as trueness and its repeatability as precision. The descriptive statistics, a factorial repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a post hoc Tuckey multiple comparison tests were used to analyze the trueness, and precision (α = 0.05).

Results: A total of 576 superimpositions were performed. The unique partial area-based superimposition method demonstrated the least precise alignment and was the sole group to exhibit a significant difference (p<.001). Automated initial pre-alignments demonstrated similar accuracy to other superimposition methods (p>.05). Double alignments did not result in accuracy improvement (p>.05). The designated comparison area displayed differences in both trueness (p<.001) and precision (p<.001), leading to an overall discrepancy of 8 ± 4 μm between selecting the teeth surface or full model surface.

Conclusions: The superimposition method choice within the tested software did not impact accuracy analyses, except when the alignment relies on a unique and reduced area, such as the palatal rugae, a single tooth, or three adjacent teeth on one side.

Clinical significance: The superimposition method choice within the tested ISO-recommended 3D inspection software did not impact accuracy analyses.