Three-dimensional portable document format: a simple way to present 3-dimensional data in an electronic publication

Three-dimensional (3D) models of teeth and soft and hard tissues are tessellated surfaces used for diagnosis, treatment planning, appliance fabrication, outcome evaluation, and research. In scientific publications or communications with colleagues, these 3D data are often reduced to 2-dimensional pictures or need special software for visualization. The portable document format (PDF) offers a simple way to interactively display 3D surface data without additional software other than a recent version of Adobe Reader (Adobe, San Jose, Calif). The purposes of this article were to give an example of how 3D data and their analyses can be interactively displayed in 3 dimensions in electronic publications, and to show how they can be exported from any software for diagnostic reports and communications among colleagues.

Reproducibility and accuracy of linear measurements on dental models derived from cone-beam computed tomography compared with digital dental casts.

INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to determine the reproducibility and accuracy of linear measurements on 2 types of dental models derived from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans: CBCT images, and Anatomodels (InVivoDental, San Jose, Calif); these were compared with digital models generated from dental impressions (Digimodels; Orthoproof, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands). The Digimodels were used as the reference standard. METHODS The 3 types of digital models were made from 10 subjects. Four examiners repeated 37 linear tooth and arch measurements 10 times. Paired t tests and the intraclass correlation coefficient were performed to determine the reproducibility and accuracy of the measurements. RESULTS The CBCT images showed significantly smaller intraclass correlation coefficient values and larger duplicate measurement errors compared with the corresponding values for Digimodels and Anatomodels. The average difference between measurements on CBCT images and Digimodels ranged from -0.4 to 1.65 mm, with limits of agreement values up to 1.3 mm for crown-width measurements. The average difference between Anatomodels and Digimodels ranged from -0.42 to 0.84 mm with limits of agreement values up to 1.65 mm. CONCLUSIONS Statistically significant differences between measurements on Digimodels and Anatomodels, and between Digimodels and CBCT images, were found. Although the mean differences might be clinically acceptable, the random errors were relatively large compared with corresponding measurements reported in the literature for both Anatomodels and CBCT images, and might be clinically important. Therefore, with the CBCT settings used in this study, measurements made directly on CBCT images and Anatomodels are not as accurate as measurements on Digimodels.