Olga Košková, Libor Borák, Wanda Urbanová, Alena Bryšová, Magda Nováková, Michaela Richtrová, Libor Streit, Petr Štourač, Petr Marcián
{"title":"Comparison of silicone impressions with intraoral 3D scans in newborns with cleft lip and palate.","authors":"Olga Košková, Libor Borák, Wanda Urbanová, Alena Bryšová, Magda Nováková, Michaela Richtrová, Libor Streit, Petr Štourač, Petr Marcián","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.02.054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Statement of problem: </strong>Intraoral scanning is currently becoming the standard method for imaging the maxilla in patients with cleft lip and palate. However, the reliability of intraoral scans compared with traditional conventional impression methods has not yet been sufficiently described and examined in detail in newborns with severe types of cleft lip and palate.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this clinical study was to assess the reliability and agreement between intraoral scanning and traditional impression methods for maxillary measurements in newborns with unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate (U/BCLP). A secondary aim was to evaluate the consistency of maxillary measurements obtained with and without general anesthesia.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Six newborns with cleft lip and palate underwent 4 maxillary impression methods (silicone impression and 3-dimensional (3D) scan, with and without anesthesia). Intra- and inter-observer reliability was assessed by 3 clinicians using intraclass correlation coefficient, median absolute deviation, and median relative deviation (α=.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The intraclass correlation coefficient values for both inter-observer and intra-observer reliability indicated excellent agreement (ICC>.90, P<.05) for maxillary dimension measurements. Acceptable variability was observed because of differences in reference point identification by clinicians and across data collection methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When assessing the maxilla in U/BCLP patients, both intraoral scanner and traditional impression techniques showed excellent reliability and agreement in measurements, whether performed while the newborns were awake or under general anesthesia.</p>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.02.054","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Statement of problem: Intraoral scanning is currently becoming the standard method for imaging the maxilla in patients with cleft lip and palate. However, the reliability of intraoral scans compared with traditional conventional impression methods has not yet been sufficiently described and examined in detail in newborns with severe types of cleft lip and palate.
Purpose: The purpose of this clinical study was to assess the reliability and agreement between intraoral scanning and traditional impression methods for maxillary measurements in newborns with unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate (U/BCLP). A secondary aim was to evaluate the consistency of maxillary measurements obtained with and without general anesthesia.
Material and methods: Six newborns with cleft lip and palate underwent 4 maxillary impression methods (silicone impression and 3-dimensional (3D) scan, with and without anesthesia). Intra- and inter-observer reliability was assessed by 3 clinicians using intraclass correlation coefficient, median absolute deviation, and median relative deviation (α=.05).
Results: The intraclass correlation coefficient values for both inter-observer and intra-observer reliability indicated excellent agreement (ICC>.90, P<.05) for maxillary dimension measurements. Acceptable variability was observed because of differences in reference point identification by clinicians and across data collection methods.
Conclusions: When assessing the maxilla in U/BCLP patients, both intraoral scanner and traditional impression techniques showed excellent reliability and agreement in measurements, whether performed while the newborns were awake or under general anesthesia.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is the leading professional journal devoted exclusively to prosthetic and restorative dentistry. The Journal is the official publication for 24 leading U.S. international prosthodontic organizations. The monthly publication features timely, original peer-reviewed articles on the newest techniques, dental materials, and research findings. The Journal serves prosthodontists and dentists in advanced practice, and features color photos that illustrate many step-by-step procedures. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is included in Index Medicus and CINAHL.