European journal of orthodontics · 2018
Intra-observer reliability and agreement of manual and digital orthodontic model analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Koretsi Vasiliki, Tingelhoff Linda, Proff Peter, Kirschneck Christian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Digital orthodontic model analysis is gaining acceptance in orthodontics, but its reliability is dependent on the digitalisation hardware and software used. We thus investigated intra-observer reliability and agreement / conformity of a particular digital model analysis work-flow in relation to traditional manual plaster model analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight plaster casts of the upper/lower dentition were collected. Virtual models were obtained with orthoX®scan (Dentaurum) and analysed with ivoris®analyze3D (Computer konkret). Manual model analyses were done with a dial caliper (0.1 mm). Common parameters were measured on each plaster cast and its virtual counterpart five times each by an experienced observer. We assessed intra-observer reliability within method (ICC), agreement/conformity between methods (Bland-Altman analyses and Lin's concordance correlation), and changing bias (regression analyses).
RESULTS: Intra-observer reliability was substantial within each method (ICC ≥ 0.7), except for five manual outcomes (12.8 per cent). Bias between methods was statistically significant, but less than 0.5 mm for 87.2 per cent of the outcomes. In general, larger tooth sizes were measured digitally. Total difference maxilla and mandible had wide limits of agreement (-3.25/6.15 and -2.31/4.57 mm), but bias between methods was mostly smaller than intra-observer variation within each method with substantial conformity of manual and digital measurements in general. No changing bias was detected.
CONCLUSIONS: Although both work-flows were reliable, the investigated digital work-flow proved to be more reliable and yielded on average larger tooth sizes. Averaged differences between methods were within 0.5 mm for directly measured outcomes but wide ranges are expected for some computed space parameters due to cumulative error.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight plaster casts of the upper/lower dentition were collected. Virtual models were obtained with orthoX®scan (Dentaurum) and analysed with ivoris®analyze3D (Computer konkret). Manual model analyses were done with a dial caliper (0.1 mm). Common parameters were measured on each plaster cast and its virtual counterpart five times each by an experienced observer. We assessed intra-observer reliability within method (ICC), agreement/conformity between methods (Bland-Altman analyses and Lin's concordance correlation), and changing bias (regression analyses).
RESULTS: Intra-observer reliability was substantial within each method (ICC ≥ 0.7), except for five manual outcomes (12.8 per cent). Bias between methods was statistically significant, but less than 0.5 mm for 87.2 per cent of the outcomes. In general, larger tooth sizes were measured digitally. Total difference maxilla and mandible had wide limits of agreement (-3.25/6.15 and -2.31/4.57 mm), but bias between methods was mostly smaller than intra-observer variation within each method with substantial conformity of manual and digital measurements in general. No changing bias was detected.
CONCLUSIONS: Although both work-flows were reliable, the investigated digital work-flow proved to be more reliable and yielded on average larger tooth sizes. Averaged differences between methods were within 0.5 mm for directly measured outcomes but wide ranges are expected for some computed space parameters due to cumulative error.