الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 167 |  |  |
| | | from | 167 | | |
Abstract
Orthodontic diagnostic setup is an essential tool for treatment plan simulation, patient and dental team communication. However, manual diagnostic setup was not done routinely in dental clinics because it is difficult to transfer, technique sensitive and can be easily distorted. Recently, digital diagnostic setups claimed to overcome these obstacles. However, the previous evidence lacked standardized comprehensive comparison between the manual and digital orthodontic diagnostic setups.
In this study we compared the digital orthodontic diagnostic setup with the conventional manual diagnostic setup. The diagnostic setups were constructed from pre-treatment study models according to their respective treatment plan, following standardized protocols and both were guided by the same original mandibular arch form.
The sample cases were collected from the data files of the orthodontic department, faculty of dentistry, Ain Shams University. The sample consisted of 60 cases, which were duplicated and used for manual and digital orthodontic diagnostic setups construction.
The cases were selected to have: Full Permanent dentition with fully erupted teeth excluding third permanent molars, age range from 18 to 30 years old, Skeletal Class 1 jaw relationship, Angle’s Class I molar relationship and pre-treatment study models are in good condition. The cases also were non growing patients, with cervical vertebrae maturation stage 6 and non-extraction treatment plan.
Cases with history of having cleft lip and/or palate, present teeth anomalies, malformations, impacted or partially erupted teeth were excluded. Also, cases that had anterior open or deep bite or needed orthognathic surgery were not included in the study.
The study was performed at the orthodontic digital center at the orthodontic department, faculty of dentistry, Ain Shams University.
The study models were duplicated, then the duplicated models were scanned using 3shape R750 desktop scanner (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark).
Duplicated plaster models were mounted and used to fabricate manual orthodontic diagnostic setup. Later, manual diagnostic setup models were 3D scanned for later assessment.
OrthoAnalyzer program (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used for virtual orthodontic diagnostic setup construction. Later, digital diagnostic setup models were 3D printed for later assessment.
ABO CRE82 was performed on 3D printed digital diagnostic setup models and plaster manual diagnostic setup models using ABO measuring gauge.
Inter- and intra-arch linear measurements were evaluated digitally on scanned Manual diagnostic setups models and digital diagnostic setup using OrthoAnalyzer program (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark).
Laboratory time was recorded during the manual and digital orthodontic setups. Also, the percentage and frequency of broken teeth during manual diagnostic setup process were recorded.