Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Virtual setup: application in orthodontic practice

Virtuelles Setup: Anwendung in der kieferorthopädischen Praxis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

A plaster dental model is a patient’s traditional three-dimensional (3D) record. If the dental crowns from a plaster model are separated and positioned in wax, this setup of the crowns can be used to simulate orthodontic treatment. The traditional way to make this dental setup requires significant time by the orthodontist and in the orthodontic lab. New developments in dentistry and orthodontics include the possibility of virtual setups.

Aim

In this article, the differences between conventional setups with plaster models and virtual setups are discussed.

Methods

A clinical patient is described for whom two different setups were made and compared by model superimposition with Geomagic Qualify software.

Results

According to the literature and the results from this study, virtual setups and conventional setups with plaster models are equally accurate.

Conclusion

Virtual setups present several advantages, e.g., digital storage, digital models cannot be damaged, the same model can undergo several treatment simulations, and communication between dental and surgical professionals and between dental professionals and patients is facilitated. Despite these advantages, considerable time and training are needed for dental professionals to master and adopt the general use of digital models and virtual setups in dentistry.

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Ein Gipsmodell ist die traditionelle dreidimensionale Akte des Patienten. Die vom Gipsmodell getrennten und in Wachs eingebrachten Zahnkronen können dazu dienen, die kieferorthopädische Behandlung zu simulieren. Das traditionelle Verfahren für dieses Setup bedarf eines erheblichen Zeitaufwandes sowohl für den Kieferorthopäden als auch für den Zahntechniker. Zu den neuen Entwicklungen in der Zahnheilkunde und in der Kieferorthopädie zählt die Möglichkeit virtueller Setups.

Ziel

Diskutiert wird der Unterschied zwischen konventionellen Setups mit Gipsmodellen und virtuellen Setups.

Methoden

Für einen klinischen Patienten wurden 2 verschiedene Setups erstellt, die anhand der Überlagerung der Modelle unter Verwendung der Software Geomagic Qualify miteinander verglichen wurden.

Ergebnisse

Der Literatur und den Ergebnissen der Studie zufolge ist die Genauigkeit virtueller Setups und konventioneller Setups mit Gipsmodellen gleich.

Schlussfolgerung

Virtuelle Setups bieten eine Reihe von Vorteilen, u. a. lassen sie sich digital archivieren, digitale Modelle können nicht beschädigt werden, und dasselbe Modell kann für mehrere Behandlungssimulationen eingesetzt werden. Ferner erleichtern sie die Kommunikation zwischen Kieferorthopäden und Kieferchirurgen sowie zwischen Kieferorthopäden und Patienten. Trotz dieser Vorteile ist ein erhebliches Maß an Zeit- und Fortbildungsaufwand notwendig, um den Einsatz von digitalen Modellen und virtuellen Setups in der Zahnheilkunde zu erlernen und anzuwenden.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alford TJ, Roberts WE, Hartsfield JK et al (2011) Clinical outcomes for patients finished with the SureSmile method compared with conventional fixed orthodontic therapy. Angle Orthod 81:383–388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Araujo TM, Fonseca LM, Caldus LD et al (2012) Preparation and evaluation of orthodontic setup. Dental Press J Orthod 17:146–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barreto MS, Faber J, Vogel CJ et al (2016) Reliability of digital orthodontic setups. Angle Orthod  86:255–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Breuning KH (2011) Efficient tooth movement with new technologies for customized treatment. J Clin Orthod 45:257–262 (quiz 87)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen S, Xu TM (2013) Treatment of a severe transverse dental arch discrepancy assisted by 3-dimensional planning. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 143:105–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Choi DS, Jeong YM, Jang I et al (2010) Accuracy and reliability of palatal superimposition of three-dimensional digital models. Angle Orthod 80:497–503

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fabels LN, Nijkamp PG (2014) Interexaminer and intraexaminer reliabilities of 3-dimensional orthodontic virtual setups. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 146:806–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K et al (2013) Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144:471–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Goonewardene RW, Goonewardene MS, Razza JM et al (2008) Accuracy and validity of space analysis and irregularity index measurements using digital models. Aust Orthod J 24:83–90

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gracco A, Buranello M, Cozzani M et al (2007) Digital and plaster models: a comparison of measurements and times. Prog Orthod 8:252–259

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grauer D, Proffit WR (2011) Accuracy in tooth positioning with a fully customized lingual orthodontic appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 140:433–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Horton HM, Miller JR, Gaillard PR et al (2010) Technique comparison for efficient orthodontic tooth measurements using digital models. Angle Orthod 80:254–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Im J, Cha JY, Lee KJ et al (2014) Comparison of virtual and manual tooth setups with digital and plaster models in extraction cases. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 145:434–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kesling H (1956) The diagnostic setup with consideration of the third dimension. Am J Orthod 42:740–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kihara T, Tanimoto K, Michida M et al (2012) Construction of orthodontic setup models on a computer. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 141:806–813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Larson BE, Vaubel CJ, Grunheid T (2013) Effectiveness of computer-assisted orthodontic treatment technology to achieve predicted outcomes. Angle Orthod 83:557–562

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS et al (2009) Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 136:16e1–16e4 (discussion)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Macchi A, Carrafiello G, Cacciafesta V et al (2006) Three-dimensional digital modeling and setup. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 129:605–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Miller RJ, Derakhshan M (2004) Three-dimensional technology improves the range of orthodontic treatment with esthetic and removable aligners. World J Orthod 5:242–249

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mujagic M, Fauquet C, Galletti C et al (2005) Digital design and manufacturing of the Lingualcare bracket system. J Clin Orthod 39:375–382 (quiz 0)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mullen SR, Martin CA, Ngan P et al (2007) Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 132:346–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Park TJ, Lee SH, Lee KS (2012) A method for mandibular dental arch superimposition using 3D cone beam CT and orthodontic 3D digital model. Korean J Orthod 42:169–181

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Quimby ML, Vig KW, Rashid RG et al (2004) The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. Angle Orthod 74:298–303

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rangel FA, Maal TJ, Bronkhorst EM et al (2013) Accuracy and reliability of a novel method for fusion of digital dental casts and Cone Beam Computed Tomography scans. PLoS ONE 8:e59130

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Rheude B, Sadowsky PL, Ferriera A et al (2005) An evaluation of the use of digital study models in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Angle Orthod 75:300–304

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sachdeva RC (2001) SureSmile technology in a patient–centered orthodontic practice. J Clin Orthod 35:245–253

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sousa MV, Vasconcelos EC, Janson G et al (2012) Accuracy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 142:269–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B et al (2006) Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 129:794–803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tomassetti JJ, Taloumis LJ, Denny JM et al (2001) A comparison of 3 computerized Bolton tooth-size analyses with a commonly used method. Angle Orthod 71:351–357

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Torassian G, Kau CH, English JD et al (2010) Digital models vs plaster models using alginate and alginate substitute materials. Angle Orthod 80:474–481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. van der Linden FP (1978) Changes in the position of posterior teeth in relation to ruga points. Am J Orthod 74:142–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Nolthenius HET et al (2013) Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 143:140–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, Federal Fluminense University, Mário Santos Braga Street, 30, 2º Floor, Room 214, Niteroi, RJ, 24020-140, Brazil

    Leonardo T. Camardella, Eduardo Kant C. Rothier & Oswaldo V. Vilella

  2. Department of Orthodontics and Craniofacal Biology and Cleft Palate, Craniofacial Centre, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Edwin M. Ongkosuwito & Karel Hero Breuning

Authors
  1. Leonardo T. Camardella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eduardo Kant C. Rothier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oswaldo V. Vilella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Edwin M. Ongkosuwito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karel Hero Breuning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonardo T. Camardella.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

L. T. Camardella, E. K. C. Rothier, O. V. Vilella, E. M. Ongkosuwito, and K. H. Breuning declare that they have no competing interests.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants from whom identifying information is included in this article.

Additional information

Dr. Leonardo Tavares Camardella.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Camardella, L.T., Rothier, E.K.C., Vilella, O.V. et al. Virtual setup: application in orthodontic practice. J Orofac Orthop 77, 409–419 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-016-0048-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-016-0048-y

Keywords

Schlüssewörter

Search

Navigation