Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2022; 61(03/04): 090-098
DOI: 10.1055/a-1868-6555
Original Article

Reliability of Cusp Angulation Using Three-Dimensional Digital Models: A Preliminary In Vitro Study

Xinggang Liu
1   Department of prosthodontics, Beijing Stomatological Hospital, Capital Medical University; School of Stomatology, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
,
Xiaoxian Chen
2   Department of Pediatric Dentistry, First Clinical Division, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Xicheng District, Beijing, China
› Author Affiliations Funding This investigation was supported by the Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Incubating Program (code: PX2017031) and Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Clinical Medicine Development of Special Funding Support (code: ZYLX201828).
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Dental cusp angulation provides valuable insights into chewing efficiency and prosthesis safety. Artificial intelligence-enabled computing of cusp angles has potential important value, but there is currently no reliable digital measurement method as a cornerstone.

Objectives To establish a digital method for measuring cusp angles and investigate inter-rater and intra-rater reliabilities.

Methods Two cusp angles (angles α and β) of the first molar were measured on 21 plaster casts using a goniometer and on their corresponding digital models using PicPick software after scanning with a CEREC Bluecam three-dimensional (3D) intraoral scanner. Means ± standard deviations, as well as intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Pearson's correlation coefficients (PCCs) were calculated, and repeated measures analysis of variance was performed. The Bland–Altman method was used to calculate the difference and mean degree values of two measurement methods from both examiners, and the Bland–Altman diagram was drawn using MedCalc software.

Results When the examiner was experienced, angle α was 139.19° ± 13.86°, angle β was 19.25° ± 6.86°, and a very strong positive correlation between the two methods was found (r > 0.9; p < 0.001). No significant difference between the two methods was found using the repeated measures analysis of variance (p > 0.05). The Bland–Altman diagram showed that the two methods were highly consistent. For inter-rater assessments, the ICC and PCC values of the cusp angulation using the digital method were all higher than the corresponding values measured on traditional casts. For intra-rater assessments, the ICC values of cusp angulation using the digital method were higher than the corresponding values measured on traditional plaster casts for both examiners. However, repeated measurements of the angle β of the inter-examiners revealed significant differences (p < 0.05) for both methods.

Conclusions Cusp angulation using 3D digital models is a clinical option and appears to improve the reliability of cusp angulation compared with measuring plaster casts using a goniometer. This variability was still evident when measuring small cusp angles using the digital model for inexperienced examiners.

Keywords

reliability - dental cusp angulation - 3D digital models - cracked tooth


Publication History

Received: 27 January 2022

Accepted: 31 May 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
03 June 2022

Article published online:
11 October 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Khers SC, Carpenter CW, Vetter JD, Staley RN. Anatomy of cusps of posterior teeth and their fracture potential. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 64 (02) 139-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Sornsuwan T, Ellakwa A, Swain MV. Occlusal geometrical considerations in all-ceramic pre-molar crown failure testing. Dent Mater 2011; 27 (11) 1127-1134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Chu J, Bennani V, Aarts JM, Chandler N, Lowe B. The effect of different geometric shapes and angles on the fracture strength of IPS e.max computer-aided designed ceramic onlays: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2018; 21 (02) 210-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Shahmoradi M, Wan B, Zhang Z, Wilson T, Swain M, Li Q. Monolithic crowns fracture analysis: the effect of material properties, cusp angle and crown thickness. Dent Mater 2020; 36 (08) 1038-1051
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ghani F. Prosthetic posterior teeth with cusps may improve patient satisfaction with complete dentures. Evid Based Dent 2005; 6 (02) 39-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Arksornnukit M, Phunthikaphadr T, Takahashi H. Pressure transmission and distribution under denture bases using denture teeth with different materials and cuspal angulations. J Prosthet Dent 2011; 105 (02) 127-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Qian Y, Zhou X, Yang J. Correlation between cuspal inclination and tooth cracked syndrome: a three-dimensional reconstruction measurement and finite element analysis. Dent Traumatol 2013; 29 (03) 226-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Preis V, Dowerk T, Behr M, Kolbeck C, Rosentritt M. Influence of cusp inclination and curvature on the in vitro failure and fracture resistance of veneered zirconia crowns. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18 (03) 891-900
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mamoun JS, Napoletano D. Cracked tooth diagnosis and treatment: An alternative paradigm. Eur J Dent 2015; 9 (02) 293-303
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Adadey A, Giannini R, Possanza LB. Developing an analytical pipeline to classify patient safety event reports using optimized predictive algorithms. Methods Inf Med 2021; 60 (5-06): 147-161
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ji M, Chen X, Genchev GZ, Wei M, Yu G. Status of AI-enabled clinical decision support systems implementations in China. Methods Inf Med 2021; 60 (5-06): 123-132
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mörmann WH, Reich S. Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview. Int J Comput Dent 2015; 18 (02) 101-129
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Rudolph H, Salmen H, Moldan M. et al. Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 2016; 24 (01) 85-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Abdullah AO, Tsitrou EA, Pollington S. Comparative in vitro evaluation of CAD/CAM vs conventional provisional crowns. J Appl Oral Sci 2016; 24 (03) 258-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Zaruba M, Mehl A. Chairside systems: a current review. Int J Comput Dent 2017; 20 (02) 123-149
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Treesh JC, Liacouras PC, Taft RM. et al. Complete-arch accuracy of intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 120 (03) 382-388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Marro F, De Lat L, Martens L, Jacquet W, Bottenberg P. Monitoring the progression of erosive tooth wear (ETW) using BEWE index in casts and their 3D images: a retrospective longitudinal study. J Dent 2018; 73: 70-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Rydén J, Thor A. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: a novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent 2018; 69: 110-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Neves FD, Prado CJ, Prudente MS. et al. Micro-computed tomography evaluation of marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated by using chairside CAD/CAM systems or the heat-pressing technique. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112 (05) 1134-1140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nedelcu RG, Persson ASK. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112 (06) 1461-1471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Nejatidanesh F, Amjadi M, Akouchekian M, Savabi O. Clinical performance of CEREC AC Bluecam conservative ceramic restorations after five years–a retrospective study. J Dent 2015; 43 (09) 1076-1082
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Trifkovic B, Budak I, Todorovic A, Vukelic D, Lazic V, Puskar T. Comparative analysis on measuring performances of dental intraoral and extraoral optical 3D digitization systems. Measurement 2014; 47 (C): 45-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Macauley D, Garvey TM, Dowling AH, Fleming GJP. Using Little's Irregularity Index in orthodontics: outdated and inaccurate?. J Dent 2012; 40 (12) 1127-1133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar