Comparison of silicone impressions with intraoral 3D scans in newborns with cleft lip and palate

Comparison of silicone impressions with intraoral 3D scans in newborns with cleft lip and palate

WoS Article

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 (alpha=.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. (J Prosthet Dent 2025;134:275-282)

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 (alpha=.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. (J Prosthet Dent 2025;134:275-282)

reliability; repair

reliability; repair

KOŠKOVÁ, O.; BORÁK, L.; WANDA, U.; BRYŠOVÁ, A.; NOVÁKOVÁ, M.; RICHTROVA, M.; STREIT, L.; ŠTOURAČ, P.; MARCIÁN, P.

27.07.2025

MOSBY-ELSEVIER

NEW YORK

0022-3913

JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

134

1

United States of America

275

282

8

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022391325001970