Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 2.1
5-Year Impact Factor – 2.2
Scopus CiteScore – 3.4 (CiteScore Tracker 3.4)
Index Copernicus  – 161.11; MEiN – 140 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2019, vol. 28, nr 12, December, p. 1647–1656

doi: 10.17219/acem/110318

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Accuracy of digital dental models using the low-cost DAVID laser scanner

Raphael Olszewski1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Joanna Szyper-Szczurowska2,B,C,D,E,F, Maciej Opach3,B,C,D,E,F, Piotr Bednarczyk4,B,C,D,E,F, Jan Zapala3,E,F, Stefan Szczepanik4,A,B,C,D,E,F

1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium

2 Department of Orthodontics, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland

3 Department of Cranio-maxillofacial Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland

4 Department of Metal Forming, AGH University of Science and Technology, Kraków, Poland


Background. Accurate laser scanning of plaster casts using validated, low-cost hardware represents a key issue in 3D orthodontics.
Objectives. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of measurements taken from plaster casts (gold standard) with digital models of those casts created with a low-cost structural light DAVID laser scanner.
Material and Methods. Five different measurements were taken on each of 14 plaster casts by 2 independent observers with an electronic caliper. The measurements were repeated 10 times on all 14 plaster casts by each observer, with a 1-week interval between each set of measurements. All 14 plaster casts were digitized using a low-cost DAVID SLS 3 laser scanner. The same 5 measurements were performed on each of the 3D virtual surface models of the 14 plaster casts by 2 independent observers using Meshlab software in a manner similar to that used with the digital caliper. The measurements were repeated 10 times by the 2 observers with 1 week between each set of measurements.
Results. The laser-scanned models were more accurate than the plaster cast models in defining measurements based on simple tooth fissures. The accuracy of measurements based on complex tooth fissures were equivalent for the 2 types of model. For measurements based on interproximal dental contacts, the 2 methods of measurement were similar and both were notably poor in terms of accuracy.
Conclusion. Three-dimensional virtual models obtained from the low-cost DAVID laser scanner can be used clinically, but only for certain types of measurements and indications.

Key words

orthodontics, laser scanner, digital dental models, plaster cast

References (11)

  1. Jiménez-Gayosso SI, Lara-Carrillo E, López-González S, et al. Difference between manual and digital measurements of dental arches of orthodontic patients. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(22):e10887.
  2. Reuschl RP, Heuer W, Stiesch M, Wenzel D, Dittmer MP. Reliability and validity of measurements on digital study models and plaster models. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(1):22–26.
  3. Peluso MJ, Josell SD, Levine SW, Lorei BJ. Digital models: An introduction. Semin Orthod. 2004;10(3):226–238.
  4. Nowak R, Wesemann C, Robben J, Muallah J, Bumann A. An in-vitro study comparing the accuracy of full-arch casts digitized with desktop scanners. Quintessence Int. 2017;20:667–676.
  5. Robben J, Muallah J, Wesemann C, et al. Suitability and accuracy of CBCT model scan: An in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent. 2017;20(4):363–375.
  6. Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: A systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(4):422–428.
  7. Howe RP, McNamara JA, Jr, O’Connor KA. An examination of dental crowding and its relationship to tooth size and arch dimension. Am J Orthod. 1983;83(5):363–373.
  8. Horton HM, Miller JR, Gaillard PR, Larson BE. Technique comparison for efficient orthodontic tooth measurements using digital models. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(2):254–261.
  9. Kim J, Lagravére MO. Accuracy of Bolton analysis measured in laser scanned digital models compared with plaster models (gold standard) and cone-beam computer tomography images. Korean J Orthod. 2016;46(1):13–19.
  10. De Luca Canto G, Pachêco-Pereira C, Lagravere MO, Flores-Mir C, Major PW. Intra-arch dimensional measurement validity of laser-scanned digital dental models compared with the original plaster models: A systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(2):65–76.
  11. Bailey E, Nelson G, Miller AJ, Andrews L, Johnson E. Predicting tooth-size discrepancy: A new formula utilizing revised landmarks and 3-dimensional laser scanning technology. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143(4):574–585.