Comparison of digital study model superimposition methods using implant-supported crowns and best-fit algorithms

Introduction: Research regarding orthodontic changes using the superimposition of digital study models (DSMs) is commonplace. Information regarding the accuracy of data processing by superimposition software is limited. The study aimed to compare different methods of superimposing DSMs using implant-supported crowns (ISC) as a stable reference structure. Methods: DSMs containing ISCs were sourced from a database of patients treated with clear aligner therapy. The DSM representing the planned treatment outcome was superimposed on the pretreatment DSM. Three tooth points were selected for comparison on the contralateral side of each ISC. Differences in Cartesian coordinates for each tooth point for each arch superimposition method, used by the Geomagic Control X (3D systems, Rock Hill, NC) software system, were recorded. Paired ttests for the reference standard superimposition method best-fit high-resolution using the entire dental arch compared with initial, best-fit low-resolution, and best-fit high-resolution using the ISC only were calculated. Results: The DSMs of 54 dental arches containing ISCs were evaluated. All mean differences for displacements of selected points on the contralateral side to the ISC in the 3 Cartesian planes were <0.05 mm (P <0.05) and below the threshold of clinical significance. In addition, the standard superimposition techniques (initial, best-fit low-resolution, and best-fit high-resolution) resulted in nonstatistically significant and nonclinically significant differences in the position of the ISC. Conclusions: Researchers can be confident that the described superimposition methodologies, with and without ISCs as a stable reference structure, are a valid method for accurately assessing most