Journal of orthodontics · 2018
Reproducibility of the index of orthognathic functional treatment need scores derived from plaster study casts and their three-dimensional digital equivalents: a pilot study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
McCrory Emma, McGuinness Niall Jp, Ulhaq Aman
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the reproducibility of Index of Orthognathic Functional Treatment Need (IOFTN) scores derived from plaster casts and their three-dimensional (3D) digital equivalents.
DESIGN: Pilot study, prospective analytical.
SETTING: UK hospital orthodontic department.
PARTICIPANTS: Thirty casts and their digital equivalents, representing the pre-treatment malocclusions of patients requiring orthodontic-orthognathic surgical treatment, were scored by four clinicians using IOFTN.
METHODS: Casts were scanned using a 3Shape digital scanner and 3D models produced using OrthoAnalyzerTM (3Shape Ltd, Copenhagen, Denmark). Examiners independently determined the IOFTN scores for the casts and digital models, to test their inter- and intra-operator reliability using weighted Kappa scores.
RESULTS: Intra-operator agreement with IOFTN major categories (1-5: treatment need) was very good for plaster casts (0.83-0.98) and good-very good for digital models (0.78-0.83). Inter-operator agreement was moderate-very good for casts (0.58-0.82) and good-very good for digital models (0.65-0.92). Intra-operator agreement with IOFTN sub-categories (1-14: feature of malocclusion) was good-very good for casts (0.70-0.97) and digital models (0.80-0.94). Inter-operator agreement was moderate-good for casts (0.53-0.77); and moderate-very good for the digital models (0.58-0.90).
CONCLUSIONS: Digital models are an acceptable alternative to plaster casts for examining the malocclusion of patients requiring combined orthodontic-orthognathic surgical treatment and determining treatment need.
DESIGN: Pilot study, prospective analytical.
SETTING: UK hospital orthodontic department.
PARTICIPANTS: Thirty casts and their digital equivalents, representing the pre-treatment malocclusions of patients requiring orthodontic-orthognathic surgical treatment, were scored by four clinicians using IOFTN.
METHODS: Casts were scanned using a 3Shape digital scanner and 3D models produced using OrthoAnalyzerTM (3Shape Ltd, Copenhagen, Denmark). Examiners independently determined the IOFTN scores for the casts and digital models, to test their inter- and intra-operator reliability using weighted Kappa scores.
RESULTS: Intra-operator agreement with IOFTN major categories (1-5: treatment need) was very good for plaster casts (0.83-0.98) and good-very good for digital models (0.78-0.83). Inter-operator agreement was moderate-very good for casts (0.58-0.82) and good-very good for digital models (0.65-0.92). Intra-operator agreement with IOFTN sub-categories (1-14: feature of malocclusion) was good-very good for casts (0.70-0.97) and digital models (0.80-0.94). Inter-operator agreement was moderate-good for casts (0.53-0.77); and moderate-very good for the digital models (0.58-0.90).
CONCLUSIONS: Digital models are an acceptable alternative to plaster casts for examining the malocclusion of patients requiring combined orthodontic-orthognathic surgical treatment and determining treatment need.