TY - JOUR

T1 - Different Methods of Scan Alignment in Erosive Tooth Wear Measurements

T2 - An In Vitro Study

AU - Loumprinis, Nikolaos

AU - Michou, Stavroula

AU - Rahiotis, Christos

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - BACKGROUND: Model alignment in cases of erosive tooth wear can be challenging, and no method has been reported to outweigh the others.METHODS: Extracted human teeth were mounted on two models and scanned at different times, from 1 h to 2 weeks, with an intraoral scanner (3Shape TRIOS 4) before and after immersion in Monster® energy drink and tap water. The scans were superimposed (3Shape TRIOS Patient Monitoring, Version 2.2.3.3, 3Shape A/S, Copengagen, Denmark). Best fit, best-fit tooth comparison, reference best fit using fillings, and palatal rugae as reference points were used for alignment. Surface profile differences were calculated in a cross-section view. The nonparametric Bland-Altman and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used.RESULTS: First, statistically significant differences were marked after 4 days of immersion. The measurements obtained after 2 weeks of immersion were statistically significantly different from the measurements obtained at the different time points until 1 week. No statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed among the alignment methods at any time.CONCLUSION: In comparison to the best-fit model, both palatal rugae and fillings can be used. The best-fit tooth comparison method is a reliable option; however, it should be used with caution in cases of major surface loss.

AB - BACKGROUND: Model alignment in cases of erosive tooth wear can be challenging, and no method has been reported to outweigh the others.METHODS: Extracted human teeth were mounted on two models and scanned at different times, from 1 h to 2 weeks, with an intraoral scanner (3Shape TRIOS 4) before and after immersion in Monster® energy drink and tap water. The scans were superimposed (3Shape TRIOS Patient Monitoring, Version 2.2.3.3, 3Shape A/S, Copengagen, Denmark). Best fit, best-fit tooth comparison, reference best fit using fillings, and palatal rugae as reference points were used for alignment. Surface profile differences were calculated in a cross-section view. The nonparametric Bland-Altman and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used.RESULTS: First, statistically significant differences were marked after 4 days of immersion. The measurements obtained after 2 weeks of immersion were statistically significantly different from the measurements obtained at the different time points until 1 week. No statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed among the alignment methods at any time.CONCLUSION: In comparison to the best-fit model, both palatal rugae and fillings can be used. The best-fit tooth comparison method is a reliable option; however, it should be used with caution in cases of major surface loss.

U2 - 10.3390/dj12020034

DO - 10.3390/dj12020034

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 38392238

VL - 12

JO - Dentistry Journal

JF - Dentistry Journal

SN - 2304-6767

IS - 2

M1 - 34

ER -