Many clinicians talk about “impression less” solutions.
Do we need such a solution?
Summary of literature for technology diagnostic models:
Note: “o3dm” is the precursor of the current DPP-Ortho program, which was created based on many years of experience with o3dm.
|“Czy modele cyfrowe mogą zastąpić modele gipsowe?”
Lene Rosbjerg, Emilie Neumann,Michel Dalstra, Birte Melsen.„
Moja Praktyka” the magazine for orthodontists published in Poland 1999 – 2014
|Studies have shown that there were no statistically significant differences between measurements taken at the digital models and plaster. The authors also noticed greater security of patient records in digital form (models basically can not be lost or be damaged or been manipulated).||It has been proved that the measurements of digital models have better repeatability particularly when they make those with less experience clinical since the possibility of measurement inaccuracies related only to the determination of measurement points and does not occur due to the way of applying the measuring apparatus and the precision of the measurement reading.|
| „From alginate impressions to digital virtual models: accuracy and reproducibility”
Michel Dalstra, Birte Melsen
School of Dentistry, University of Aarhus, Denmark
Journal of Orthodontics, Vol. 36,2009,36-41
|It has been shown that there are no differences in the measurements between plaster models cast immediately after taking impressions in relation to the models cast 3-5 days of collection impression and obtained from them digital models, which ensures the correct measurements even after sending the impression to a professional lab by mail in order to prepare 3D models.||Making models (digital models) in one lab provides greater repeatability diagnostic material to carry out further measurements.|
“Assessment of dental arches in patients with Class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusions using 3D digital models in a Syrian sample.”
|3D digital models (O3DM) with a dedicated programme were used to measure dental arch variables. Significant differences were observed between the two groups in the mesiodistal widths of some teeth but not in the dental arch widths.||3D digital models enabled fast, accurate and reliable measurements of dental arch characteristics in patients with Class II malocclusion. (2) Insignificant differences between Cl II1 and Cl II2 patients were observed regarding Bolton’s ratios and transverse arch measurements.|
|“Comparison of Bolton analysis and tooth size measurements obtained using conventional and three-dimensional orthodontic models.”Nalcaci R1, Topcuoglu T2, OzturkF3Eur JDent. 2013 Sep;7(Suppl 1):S66-70. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.119077||The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy, reproducibility, efficacy and effectiveness of measurements obtained using digital models with those obtained using plaster models. Digital models were produced by the Ortho Three-dimensional Models (O3DM) Laboratory and their software (O3DM version 2) was used to obtain measurements. Identical plaster models were used to obtain measurements of teeth with a vernier caliper. All measurements were repeated at least 1 month later by the same operator for both digital and manual methods. The data were analyzed using Cronbach α, Wilcoxon signed rank test and the McNemar test.||Use of O3DM software is an acceptable alternative to the traditional vernier caliper method in orthodontic practice.|
|„Digital casts in orthodontics: A comparison of 4 software systems”Anna Westerlund, Weronika Tancredi, Maria Ransjo, Andrea Bresin, Spyros Psonis, and Olof Torgersson
Gothenburg SwedenAm J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;147:509-16
|The introduction of digital cast models is inevitable in the otherwise digitized everyday life of orthodontics. The introduction of this new technology, however, is not straightforward, and selecting an appropriate system can be difﬁcult. The aim of the study was to compare 4 orthodontic digital software systems regarding service, features, and usability. Methods: Information regarding service offered by the companies was obtained from questionnaires and Web sites. The features of each software system were collected by exploring the user manuals and the software programs. Replicas of pretreatment casts were sent to Cadent (OrthoCAD; Cadent, Carlstadt, NJ), OthoLab (O3DM; OrthoLab, Czestochowa, Poland), OrthoProof (DigiModel; OrthoProof, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands), and 3Shape (OrthoAnalyzer; 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark).||The usability of the programs was assessed by experts in interaction design and usability using the “enhanced cognitive walkthrough” method: 4 tasks were deﬁned and performed by a group of domain experts while they were observed by usability experts. Results: The services provided by the companies were similar. Regarding the features, all 4 systems were able to perform basic measurements; however, not all provided the peer assessment rating index or the American Board of Orthodontics analysis, simulation of the treatment with braces, or digital articulation of the casts. All systems demonstrated weaknesses in usability. However, OrthoCAD and 03DM were considered to be easier to learn for ﬁrst-time users. Conclusions: In general, the usability of these programs was poor and needs to be further developed. Hands-on training supervised by the program experts is recommended for beginners.|