The evidence supporting methods of tooth width measurement: Part II. Digital models and intra-oral scanners

1 Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 2011;14:1-16. Search in Google Scholar

2 Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW. 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 Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:794-803. Search in Google Scholar

3 Naidu D, Scott J, Ong D, Ho CT. Validity, reliability and reproducibility of three methods used to measure tooth widths for Bolton analyses. Aust Orthod J 2009;25:97-103. Search in Google Scholar

4 3M Unitek. Digital imaging solutions. URL: http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/orthodontics/Unitek Accessed Jul 4 2011. Search in Google Scholar

5 Orthoproof. Orthoproof Australasia: the digital future of orthodontics. URL: http://www.orthoproof.com.au/index.html. Search in Google Scholar

6 Quimby ML, Vig KW, Rashid RG, Firestone AR. The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. Angle Orthod 2004;74:298-303. Search in Google Scholar

7 Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:101-5. Search in Google Scholar

8 GeoDigm Corporation. Emodel: 3d digital dental models. URL: http://www.geodigmcorp.com/emodel_services/emodel_by_geodigm.html Search in Google Scholar

9 Tomassetti JJ, Taloumis LJ, Denny JM, Fischer JR, Jr. A comparison of 3 computerized Bolton tooth-size analyses with a commonly used method. Angle Orthod 2001;71:351-7. Search in Google Scholar

10 Zilberman O, Huggare JA, Parikakis KA. Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod 2003;73:301-6. Search in Google Scholar

11 Mullen SR, Martin CA, Ngan P, Gladwin M. Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:346-52. Search in Google Scholar

12 Horton HM, Miller JR, Gaillard PR, Larson BE. Technique comparison for efficient orthodontic tooth measurements using digital models. Angle Orthod 2010;80:254-61. Search in Google Scholar

13 Asquith J, McIntyre G. Dental arch relationships on three-dimensional digital study models and conventional plaster study models for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2012;49:530-4. Search in Google Scholar

14 Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:16.e1-4. Search in Google Scholar

15 Joffe L. OrthoCAD: digital models for a digital era. J Orthod 2004;31:344-7. Search in Google Scholar

16 Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. 4th edn. St. Louis: Mosby: Elsevier 2007;195. Search in Google Scholar

17 Peluso MJ, Josell SD, Levine SW, Lorei BJ. Digital models: An introduction. Semin Orthod 2004;10:226-38. Search in Google Scholar

18 Cadent™. Open technology: a timeline of digital innovation. Open, 2010;1:6. Search in Google Scholar

19 Cadent™. iOC™ powered by iTero™: a digitally perfect orthodontic impression. URL: http://cadent.cnpg.com/video/flatfiles/1217/ Search in Google Scholar

20 Radz G. Clinical impressions of digital impressions. Dental Economics 2009;99(3). Search in Google Scholar

21 Mitchem C. Why digital impressions? Accuracy and productivity. Dental Economics 2012;102(1). Search in Google Scholar

22 Cadent™. Cadent iOC powered by iTero. URL: http://www.cadentinc.com/ioc/ioc.html Search in Google Scholar

23 Jacobson C. Taking the headache out of impressions. Dentistry Today 2007;74-6. Search in Google Scholar

24 Naidu D, Freer T. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: a comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:304-10. Search in Google Scholar

25 ESPE M. Lava™ Chairside Oral Scanner C.O.S. URL: http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/LavaCOS/3MESPELavaCOS/ Search in Google Scholar

26 Birnbaum N, Aaronson H, Stevens C, Cohen B. 3D digital scanners: a high-tech approach to more accurate dental impressions. Inside Dentistry 2009;5(4). Search in Google Scholar

27 Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Tutein Nolthenius HE, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y. 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 Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:140-7. Search in Google Scholar

28 Pilsner D. Implementing digital impressions. Journal of Dental Technology 2009;26-31. Search in Google Scholar

29 Cuperus AM, Harms MC, Rangel FA, Bronkhorst EM, Schols JG, Breuning KH. Dental models made with an intraoral scanner: a validation study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142:308-13. Search in Google Scholar

30 Ormco. Lythos Digital Impression System. URL: http://ormco.com/aao/ Search in Google Scholar