Orthodontic study cast analysis - Reproducibility of recordings and agreement between conventional and 3D virtual measurements

Journal of Digital Imaging

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 482-492

  Sjögren, Anders P G ^a,b   Lindgren, Jan E ^a   Huggare, Jan Å V ^b  

^a POSTGRADUATE DENTAL EDUCATION CENTER   (Sweden)

^b KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

3D imaging; Clinical trial; Reproducibility of results

Indexed keywords

3D IMAGING; ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES; ANGULAR MEASUREMENTS; ANGULAR VARIABLES; CLINICAL TRIAL; CLINICAL USE; COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION; CONVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES; DENTAL CAST; DIGITAL IMAGING; DIGITAL MODEL; ORTHODONTIC TREATMENTS; REPRODUCIBILITIES; STANDARD DEVIATION; VIRTUAL MEASUREMENTS;

ARCHES; EXPERIMENTS; IMAGING SYSTEMS; ROTATION; SYSTEMATIC ERRORS;

THREE DIMENSIONAL;

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER INTERFACE; DENTAL CARE; DENTAL IMPRESSION; DENTURE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MALOCCLUSION; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; ODONTOMETRY; PATHOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; REPRODUCIBILITY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TOOTH ARCH;

DENTAL ARCH; DENTAL CASTING TECHNIQUE; DENTAL IMPRESSION TECHNIQUE; DENTAL MODELS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MALE; MALOCCLUSION; OBSERVER VARIATION; ODONTOMETRY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 77958053331     PISSN: 08971889     EISSN: 1618727X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10278-009-9211-y     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Dahlberg G: Statistical Methods for Medical and Biological Students. London: George Allen& Unwin Ltd, 1940, pp 122-132
2. Edwards JG: A long-term prospective evaluation of the circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy in alleviating orthodontic relapse. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 93:380-387, 1988
3. Reitan K: Tissue rearrangement during the retention of orthodontically rotated teeth. Angle Orthod 29:105-113, 1959
4. Surbeck B, Årtun J: Associations between initial, posttreatment and postretention alignment of maxillary anterior teeth. Am J Orthod 113(2):186-195, 1998
5. Little RM: The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod 68:554-563, 1975
6. Naraghi S, Andren A, Kjellberg H, Mohlin BO: Relapse tendency after orthodontic correction of upper front teeth retained with a bonded retainer. Angle Orthod 76:570-576, 2006
7. Little RM, Riedel RA, Artun J: An evaluation of changes in mandibular anterior alignment from 10 to 20 years postretention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 93:423-428, 1988
8. Gracco A, Buranello M, Cozzani M, Siciliani G: Digital and plaster models: a comparison of measurements and times. Prog Orthod 8:252-259, 2007
9. Quimby ML, Vig KW, Rashid RG, Firestone AR: The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computerbased digital models. Angle Orthod 74:298-303, 2004
10. Zilberman O, Huggare JA, Parikakis KA: Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod 73:301-306, 2003
11. Asquith J, Gillgrass T, Mossey P: Three-dimensional imaging of orthodontic models: a pilot study. Eur J Orthod 29:517-522, 2007
12. Hildebrand JC, Palomo JM, Palomo L, Sivik M, Hans M: Evaluation of a software program for applying the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system to digital casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133:283-289, 2008
13. Mok CW, Zhou L, McGrath C, Hagg U, Bendeus M: Digital images as an alternative to orthodontic casts in assessing malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need. Acta Odontol Scand 65:362-368, 2007
14. Okunami TR, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Evans CA, Sadowsky C, Fadavi S: Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 131:51-56, 2007
15. Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW: Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 129:794-803, 2006
16. Costalos PA, Sarraf K, Cangialosi TJ, Efstratiadis S: Evaluation of the accuracy of digital model analysis for the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system for dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 128:624-629, 2005
17. Mullen SR, Martin CA, Ngan P, Gladwin M: Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 132:346-352, 2007
18. Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ: Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 124:101-105, 2003
19. Tomassetti JJ, Taloumis LJ, Denny JM, Fischer Jr., JR: A comparison of 3 computerized Bolton tooth-size analyses with a commonly used method. Angle Orthod 71:351-357, 2001
20. Bland M: An Introduction to Medical Statistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991
21. Altman DG: Practical Statistics for Medical Research, UK: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1999