[A two-dimensional photographic and three-dimensional digital dental model comparative analysis in maxillary anterior teeth]
C X Jin,M W Lou,X J Cai,M X Li,Q C Huang,L N Niu,C Huang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112144-20240205-00065
2024-06-09
Abstract:Objective: To assess the accuracy of two-dimensional (2D) photographs in measuring esthetic parameters of the maxillary anterior teeth by comparing them with measurements obtained from three-dimensional (3D) dental models. Methods: A total of one hundred volunteers (49 males, 51 females, aged 18-23 years) were recruited from School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University from January to February 2024. 3D digital models of their dentitions were obtained using an intraoral scanner, and standardized frontal 2D intraoral photographs were captured with a digital camera. The lengths, widths and width/length ratio of the bilateral incisors, lateral incisors and canines were measured on both the 3D digital models and the 2D intraoral photographs. The width ratios of adjacent maxillary anterior were also calculated on the 2D intraoral photographs and the frontal view of 3D digital models. Results: The widths of lateral incisors [(5.85±0.60) mm] and canines [(4.73±0.71) mm] and the lengths of canines [(8.72±0.96) mm] in the 2D intraoral photographs were significantly lower than those in 3D digital models [(6.65±0.59), (7.76±0.60), (8.90±0.86) mm] (t=-18.24, P<0.001; t=-54.43, P<0.001; t=-4.40, P<0.001), while there were no significant differences in the lengths and widths of the other teeth (P>0.05). The width/length ratios measured from the 2D intraoral photographs for the lateral incisors and canines (0.74±0.08, 0.55±0.08) were significantly lower than those measured in the 3D digital models (0.84±0.09, 0.88±0.09) (t=-19.68, P<0.001; t=-50.21, P<0.001), and the width/length ratio of the central incisors showed no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The width ratios of canines/lateral incisors and lateral incisors/central incisors measured on the 2D intraoral photographs (0.72±0.06, 0.85±0.11) were significantly smaller than those measured in the frontal view of 3D digital models (0.75±0.06, 0.89±0.11) (t=-9.31, P<0.001; t=-6.58, P<0.001). Conclusions: There is a difference between 2D and 3D measurement results of teeth in the esthetic area and the magnitude of the difference varies with their position in the dental arch. When analyzing the measurement of the anterior teeth, it is necessary to choose the appropriate method according to the target tooth position.