Estimation of Distances in 3D by Orthodontists Using Digital Models
Source abstract
Abstract
In the field of orthodontics, digital dental arch models are increasingly replacing plaster models in orthodontic diagnostics. This change in interface from physical plaster models to digital image-based models raises the question of how orthodontists interpret intra- and inter-arch relationships from an image on a screen. In particular, the issue of the accuracy of the distances estimated on numerical models is crucial since the estimation of distances is the basis of the therapeutic decision-making process. Studies have shown that distances were well estimated on plaster models, but no study has verified this point on numerical models. This is the question that our study addresses. The experimental protocol consisted of collecting estimates of measurements made by orthodontists using digital models. The reliability of these measurements was then assessed by comparing them to the actual physical distances. We asked 31 orthodontists (19 women and 12 men; an average age of 37 years) to generate 3D model-based measurements of seven different elements: mandibular congestion, the maxillary intermolar distance, Spee’s curve, 16/26 symmetry, the right canine class, overbite, and overjet. These values were then compared to the actual measurements calculated using Insignia® software (ORMCO Corporation: Brea, CA, USA), using single sample t-tests. This test makes it possible to compare a distance estimated by the participants with a reference value, which corresponds here to the real distance. The results indicate that, overall, the distance estimates made on the 3D models differ significantly from the actual distances measured using the Insignia® software. This was particularly so for mandibular crowding (test value = 0; t (30) = 10.74; p ≤ 0.01), test value = 1; t (30) = 6.23; p ≤ 0.01). Although no study has focused on distance estimation on numerical models in the field of orthodontics, our results agree with the conclusions of studies showing that distances are not estimated in the same way in real environments and virtual environments. Additional studies will make it possible to identify more clearly the parameters (individual factors, equipment, etc.), which make it possible to improve the estimation of distances in the practice of orthodontics. In any case, these studies are necessary to improve the training of future practitioners in the use of virtual models for decision-making and to support them in the digital transition.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics · Digital Imaging in Medicine · 3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Handicap Activity Cognition Health, Bordeaux Population Health (BPH) U1219, Université de Bordeaux, 146 rue Léo Saignat, 33076 Bordeaux, France
Dentofacial Orthopedics Department, UFR des Sciences Odontologiques, 146 rue Léo Saignat, 33076 Bordeaux, France
References (62)
Show source-provided references
1. What are virtual environments?
2. Interaction 3D en Réalité Virtuelle-Etat de l’art
3. Affordable VR by 1994
4. Application of virtual reality technology in clinical medicine
5. An approach to physical rehabilitation using state-of-the-art virtual reality and motion tracking technologies10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.457 ↗
6. Virtual reality and pain management: Current trends and future directions10.2217/pmt.10.15 ↗
7. Virtual environments for medical training and education10.1162/pres.1997.6.2.139 ↗
8. The visible human project10.1109/5.662875 ↗
9. The application of virtual reality and augmented reality in Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery10.1186/s12903-019-0937-8 ↗
10. The evaluation of a novel haptic-enabled virtual reality approach for computer-aided cephalometry10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.03.014 ↗
11. A virtual training system for maxillofacial surgery using advanced haptic feedback and immersive workbench10.1002/rcs.1514 ↗
12. Augmented reality in dentistry: A current perspective10.1080/00016357.2018.1441437 ↗
13. Towards building a photo-realistic virtual human face for craniomaxillofacial diagnosis and treatment planning10.1016/j.ijom.2007.02.003 ↗
14. Three-dimensional on-screen virtual models10.1067/mod.2001.116502 ↗
15. Intraoral digital scanners
16. Lanier, J. (1988). A Vintage Virtual Reality Interview, 1988. Interview by Adam Heilbrun of Jaron Lanier, Published, Available online: https://philpapers.org/rec/LANAVV.
17. (2021, September 01). TootyVR—Application de VR Dentaire. Available online: https://www.tootyvr.com/.
18. Walking through a virtual environment improves perceived size within and beyond the walked space10.3758/s13414-016-1243-z ↗
19. El Jamiy, F., and Marsh, R. (2019, January 20–22). Distance estimation in virtual reality and augmented reality: A survey. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Electro Information Technology (EIT), Brookings, SD, USA.10.1109/EIT.2019.8834182 ↗
20. Visually perceived distance judgments: Tablet-based augmented reality versus the real world10.1080/10447318.2016.1265783 ↗
21. Bodenheimer, B., Meng, J., Wu, H., Narasimham, G., Rump, B., McNamara, T.P., Carr, T.H., and Rieser, J.J. (2007, January 25–27). Distance estimation in virtual and real environments using bisection. Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization, Tubingen, Germany.10.1145/1272582.1272589 ↗
22. HMD calibration and its effects on distance judgments10.1145/1577755.1577762 ↗
23. Distance perception and the visual horizon in head-mounted displays10.1145/1077399.1077403 ↗
24. Steinicke, F., Bruder, G., Hinrichs, K., Lappe, M., Ries, B., and Interrante, V. (October, January 30). Transitional environments enhance distance perception in immersive virtual reality systems. Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization, Chania, Greece.
25. Estimating distance in real and virtual environments: Does order make a difference?10.3758/APP.71.5.1096 ↗
26. More than just perception-action recalibration: Walking through a virtual environment causes rescaling of perceived space10.3758/s13414-013-0503-4 ↗
27. Kunz, B.R., Creem-Regehr, S.H., and Thompson, W.B. (2013). Does perceptual-motor calibration generalize across two different forms of locomotion? Investigations of walking and wheelchairs. PLoS ONE, 8.10.1371/journal.pone.0054446 ↗
28. Evaluating the accuracy of size perception on screen-based displays: Displayed objects appear smaller than real objects10.1037/xap0000051 ↗
29. Correcting distance estimates by interacting with immersive virtual environments: Effects of task and available sensory information10.1037/1076-898X.14.1.61 ↗
30. Perception of visual speed while moving10.1037/0096-1523.31.2.339 ↗
31. Henry, D., and Furness, T. (1993, January 18–22). Spatial perception in virtual environments: Evaluating an architectural application. Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, Seattle, WA, USA.
32. Interrante, V., Ries, B., and Anderson, L. (2006, January 25–29). Distance perception in immersive virtual environments, revisited. Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality Conference (VR 2006), Alexandria, VA, USA.
33. Limited field of view of head-mounted displays is not the cause of distance underestimation in virtual environments10.1162/1054746042545238 ↗
34. Mohler, B.J., Creem-Regehr, S.H., and Thompson, W.B. (2006, January 28–29). The influence of feedback on egocentric distance judgments in real and virtual environments. Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization, Boston, MA, USA.10.1145/1140491.1140493 ↗
35. Distance perception in real and virtual environments10.1145/1077399.1077402 ↗
36. The effect of feedback training on distance estimation in virtual environments10.1002/acp.1140 ↗
37. Throwing versus walking as indicators of distance perception in similar real and virtual environments10.1145/1048687.1048690 ↗
38. Egocentric distance perception in a virutal environment using a perceptual matching task10.1177/154193129904302219 ↗
39. Does the quality of the computer graphics matter when judging distances in visually immersive environments?10.1162/1054746042545292 ↗
40. Willemsen, P., and Gooch, A.A. (2002, January 24–28). Perceived egocentric distances in real, image-based, and traditional virtual environments. Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality 2002, Orlando, FL, USA.
41. Nonvisually guided locomotion to a previously viewed target in real and virtual environments10.1518/001872098779591340 ↗
42. Visual perception of egocentric distance in real and virtual environments
43. Interaction with an immersive virtual environment corrects users’ distance estimates10.1518/001872007X200139 ↗
44. Geuss, M., Stefanucci, J., Creem-Regehr, S., and Thompson, W.B. (2010, January 23–24). Can I pass? Using affordances to measure perceived size in virtual environments. Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization, Los Angeles, CA, USA.10.1145/1836248.1836259 ↗
45. Estimation of distances in virtual environments using size constancy10.20870/IJVR.2009.8.1.2714 ↗
46. Validation of subjective and objective evaluation methods for orthodontic treatment outcome
47. Angle’s Classification—A Prosthodontic Consideration: Best Evidence Consensus Statement10.1111/jopr.13307 ↗
48. Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: A systematic review10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.06.029 ↗
49. Digital model as an alternative to plaster model in assessment of space analysis10.4103/0975-7406.163506 ↗
50. Reliability and validity of measurements on digital study models and plaster models10.1093/ejo/cjv001 ↗
51. Spatial constraints for 3D perception in Helmet-Mounted Displays
52. Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand10.1016/S0960-9822(95)00133-3 ↗
53. Are perception and action affected differently by the Titchener circles illusion?10.1007/s002210050777 ↗
54. Accommodation and size-constancy of virtual objects10.1007/s10439-007-9414-7 ↗
55. EEG-based neuroergonomics for 3D user interfaces: Opportunities and challenges10.3917/th.801.0073 ↗
56. Recalibration of perceived distance in virtual environments occurs rapidly and transfers asymmetrically across scale10.1109/TVCG.2014.36 ↗
57. Ebrahimi, E., Altenhoff, B.M., Pagano, C.C., and Babu, S.V. (2015, January 23–24). Carryover effects of calibration to visual and proprioceptive information on near field distance judgments in 3d user interaction. Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), Arles, France.10.1109/3DUI.2015.7131732 ↗
58. Trabucco, J.T., Rottigni, A., Cavallo, M., Bailey, D., Patton, J., and Marai, G.E. (2019). User perspective and higher cognitive task-loads influence movement and performance in immersive training environments. BMC Biomed. Eng., 1.10.1186/s42490-019-0021-0 ↗
59. A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them10.1038/349154a0 ↗
60. An evolving view of duplex vision: Separate but interacting cortical pathways for perception and action10.1016/j.conb.2004.03.002 ↗
61. Separate neural pathways for the visual analysis of object shape in perception and prehension10.1016/S0960-9822(00)00132-9 ↗
62. The role of cognitive sciences in orthodontic treatments: Optimizing the interface between practitioners and new technologies10.1051/odfen/2018116 ↗