Optimization of Dentition Measurements in Orthodontic Practice

Cover Page

Cite item


Orthodontic treatment planning is a practice that depends on the accuracy of teeth and dental arches’ size measurement. The purpose of the study is to compare the accuracy and the duration of teeth and dental arches’ measurement, utilizing different approaches from conventional plaster models to virtual 3D models obtained by intraoral and extraoral scanners. Fifteen patients were included in the study (7 males, 8 females, mean age 21.7 ± 0.7 years), with a moderate anterior teeth crowding and class I Angle’s classification of malocclusion. Plaster models, as well as virtual 3D scans were obtained by intraoral and extraoral scanners prior to the orthodontic treatment, crown sizes of incisors, transverse and longitudinal sizes of dentitions, as well as the length of dental arches’ segments were measured, the duration of each measurement was also evaluated. Material and Methods: groups were allocated according to the four different ways the measurements were obtained: 1) biometric measurements on plaster models of the jaws; 2) virtual 3D data of the dentition using intraoral scanner; 3) 3D scanning data of plaster models; 4) 3D scanning data of silicone impressions. Results: The differences between the same type of measurements using a 3D scanner and measurements on plaster models when compared to the same control points in the oral cavity were, on average, 0.3 ± 0.01 mm. The time required to work with plaster models compared to the time taken to obtain virtual models on a 3D scanner was significantly greater, respectively, 15.3 ± 0.7 min. and 5.1 ± 0.2 min. Thus, 3D scanning is the most accurate standardized method for assessing the size of teeth and dental arches with shorter duration of manipulations, although it requires laboratory equipment and certain manual skills.

About the authors

I. Katbeh

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)

Author for correspondence.
Email: dr.kosyreva@mail.ru
Moscow, Russia

T. F. Kosyreva

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)

Email: dr.kosyreva@mail.ru
Moscow, Russia

N. S. Tuturov

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)

Email: dr.kosyreva@mail.ru
Moscow, Russia

A. S. Birukov

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)

Email: dr.kosyreva@mail.ru
Moscow, Russia


  1. Detlef Eismann. Reliable assessment of morphological changes resulting from orthodontic treatment. European Journal of Orthodontics. 1980;2(1): 19—25.
  2. American Board of Orthodontics. Grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs, June 2012. 22 p. Available from: https://www.americanboardortho.com/ media/1191/grading-system-casts-radiographs.pdf.
  3. Ivanyuta AV, Korenev AG. New methods for the study of jaw models in the diagnosis and planning of orthodontic treatment. Novoye v stomatologi. 1999;1: 38—40.
  4. Ilyina-Markosyan JIB. Diagnostic methods in ortho­dontics. Classification of dentofacial anomalies. Diagnosis and treatment plan: Textbook. 1976. 29 p.
  5. Kuznetsova IL, Sablina GI, Shlafman VV. Mathe­matical description of the graphic form of dentition. Ortodent-Info. 1998;4: 2—4.
  6. Snagina NG, Lobzin OV. Methods for measuring jaw patterns in children. Мoscow; 1972. 15 p.
  7. Kim KR, Seo K, Kim S. Comparison of the accuracy of digital impressions and traditional impressions: Systematic review. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2018;56(3): 258—268.
  8. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, et al. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent. 2010;38: 553—559.
  9. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions — an in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent. 2011;14: 11—21.
  10. da Costa JB, Pelogia F, Hagedorn B, et al. Evaluation of different methods of optical impression making on the marginal gap of onlay created with CEREC 3D. Oper Dent. 2010;35: 324—329.
  11. Garino F, Garino GB. Comparison of dental arch measu­rements between stone and digital casts. World J Orthod. 2002;3(3): 250—4.
  12. Yun MJ, Jeon YC, Jeong CM, Huh JB. Comparison of the fit of cast gold crowns fabricated from the digital and the conventional impression techniques. J Adv Prostho­dont. 2017;9: 1—13.
  13. Rödiger M, Heinitz A, Bürgers R, Rinke S. Fitting accuracy of zirconia single crowns produced via digital and con­ventional impressions — a clinical comparative study. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21: 579—87.
  14. Del Corso M, Aba G, Vazquez L, Dargaud J and Ehren­fest DMD. Optical three dimensional scanning acquisi­tion of the position of osseointegrated implants: an in vitro study to determine method accuracy and operational feasibility. Clinical implant dentistry and related re­search. 2009;11(3): 214—21.
  15. Mehl A, Ender A, Mörmann W and Attin TH. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent. 2009;12(1): 11—28.

Copyright (c) 2019 Katbeh I., Kosyreva T.F., Tuturov N.S., Birukov A.S.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies