Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Julyan, JC
• Julyan
• de Lange

Titel

Comparison of three different instruments for orthodontic study model analysis

Ist Teil von

• South African Dental Journal, 2020-07, Vol.75 (6), p.298-302

Ort / Verlag

The South African Dental Association (SADA)

Erscheinungsjahr

2020

Link zum Volltext

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• INTRODUCTION: A proper model analysis forms a vital part of the orthodontic diagnosis process, but it remains a time-consuming procedure. In day-to-day practice, many orthodontists assess the models subjectively, without applying analytical tests, due to the time it takes to do proper model analysis.1,2 Plaster dental models have long been the gold standard for orthodontic study model analysis and to calculate the Bolton index for tooth size disproportions, as well as intra-arch space discrepancies.3,4 Vernier callipers or needle pointed dividers are traditionally used to perform measurements on dental models.5 More recently digital orthodontic study models that are computer-based have been developed and have the potential to replace the traditional plaster orthodontic models.6 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to do model analysis on one hundred orthodontic cases by making use of three different measuring tools. The objective was to see if a difference exists with regards to the measurements produced by the three different instruments and to compare the instruments with each other. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three different instruments were used to measure Ave values on one hundred orthodontic study models. The three instruments included a Boley Gauge, Digital Vernier Calliper and Carestream 3600 scanner with accompanying software. The five values measured on the study models were: maxillary intercanine width, maxillary intermolar width, mesio-distal width of tooth 11, mesio-distal width of tooth 46 and mesio-distal width of tooth 41. RESULTS: The statistical analysis performed showed that the difference in measurements produced by the three instruments were not statistically significant for the inter-molar width (p = 0.849), intercanine width (p = 0.657), mesio-distal width of tooth 11 (p = 0.178) and mesio-distal width of tooth 41 (p = 0.240 The difference in measurements for the mesio-distal width of tooth 46 were statistically significant (p<0.01). However no clinically significant difference was found when the measurements produced by the three instruments were compared. CONCLUSIONS: All three of the instruments produced accurate measurements and can be used confidently when doing a comprehensive study model analysis for orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. The values produced were similar for all three instruments with insignificant differences between the three