Comparison of silicone impressions with intraoral 3D scans in newborns with cleft lip and palate
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Comparative Study
PubMed
40148199
DOI
10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.02.054
PII: S0022-3913(25)00197-0
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Dental Impression Materials * MeSH
- Maxilla diagnostic imaging MeSH
- Infant, Newborn MeSH
- Reproducibility of Results MeSH
- Cleft Palate * diagnostic imaging MeSH
- Cleft Lip * diagnostic imaging MeSH
- Silicones * MeSH
- Imaging, Three-Dimensional * methods MeSH
- Dental Impression Technique * MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Infant, Newborn MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Dental Impression Materials * MeSH
- Silicones * MeSH
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.
References provided by Crossref.org
