Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
Influence of Superimposition Strategies and Landmark Distribution on the Full-Arch Trueness of Orthodontic Digital Models.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Firinciogullari Ezgi Cansu, Dark Edanur, Agani Sabah Genta, Erdinc Aslıhan Mediha
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of superimposition protocols and landmark distribution on deviation outcomes in orthodontic full-arch models.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty plaster models were scanned using an intraoral and desktop scanner. Ten models were evaluated for landmark suitability and inter-scanner coordinate agreement. All models were superimposed using automatic global best-fit (AGB), three-point landmark (3PL) alignment with two different triads, and area-specific alignment (ASA). Deviation metrics were root mean square (RMS), absolute average (Abs. Avg.), and (90-10)/2. Mixed-effects models were utilized for analysis.
RESULTS: The alignment protocol significantly affected all metrics (p < 0.001). The protocol × arch interaction was significant for RMS (p < 0.001) and (90-10)/2 (p = 0.046), but not Abs. Avg. (p = 0.484). AGB and both 3PL triads produced comparable outcomes (p > 0.05), whereas ASA yielded higher deviations (p < 0.01), particularly in the mandible (RMS increased by approximately 27 μm relative to AGB).
CONCLUSIONS: AGB and 3PL protocols yield comparable reference-based trueness, whereas ASA produced higher deviations. This effect is strongly arch-dependent, suggesting the unreliability of restricted-region registration in mandibular datasets.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Digital superimposition trueness depends heavily on the alignment protocol. Standardizing registration is essential, as minor positional differences impact symmetry and finishing decisions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty plaster models were scanned using an intraoral and desktop scanner. Ten models were evaluated for landmark suitability and inter-scanner coordinate agreement. All models were superimposed using automatic global best-fit (AGB), three-point landmark (3PL) alignment with two different triads, and area-specific alignment (ASA). Deviation metrics were root mean square (RMS), absolute average (Abs. Avg.), and (90-10)/2. Mixed-effects models were utilized for analysis.
RESULTS: The alignment protocol significantly affected all metrics (p < 0.001). The protocol × arch interaction was significant for RMS (p < 0.001) and (90-10)/2 (p = 0.046), but not Abs. Avg. (p = 0.484). AGB and both 3PL triads produced comparable outcomes (p > 0.05), whereas ASA yielded higher deviations (p < 0.01), particularly in the mandible (RMS increased by approximately 27 μm relative to AGB).
CONCLUSIONS: AGB and 3PL protocols yield comparable reference-based trueness, whereas ASA produced higher deviations. This effect is strongly arch-dependent, suggesting the unreliability of restricted-region registration in mandibular datasets.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Digital superimposition trueness depends heavily on the alignment protocol. Standardizing registration is essential, as minor positional differences impact symmetry and finishing decisions.