A comparison between orthodontic model analysis using conventional methods and iModelAnalysis

Vita Previa Indirayana, Gita Gayatri, N. R. Yuliawati Zenab

= http://dx.doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v51.i4.p173-178
Abstract views = 187 times | views = 132 times

Abstract


Background: Model analysis constitutes an essential aspect of orthodontic diagnostic practice. Pavan has developed an application to simplify the mathematical calculations employed in orthodontic model analysis. Purpose: This study was conducted to obtain the differences in results and time periods of model analysis using conventional means and iModelAnalysis. Methods: The research represented a comparative analytic study. The populations comprised dental casts dating from 2014 in the Orthodontics Laboratory of Padjadjaran University. The samples comprised 31 dental casts which were subjected to a total sampling method consisting of two treatments; a conventional method calculation and one using iModelAnalysis. A normality test was conducted and processed using a paired t-test with α=0.05. Results: The means of arch length discrepancies were 1.64±2.63 mm and 1.37±3.07 mm for the conventional methods and 1.65±2.43mm and 1.42±3.04mm for iModelAnalysis. The results of a Bolton analysis for conventional methods were 78.05±2.69% and 91.93±1.29%, while those for iModelAnalysis were 77.91±2.70% and 91.96±2.13%. A Howes analysis of conventional methods produced a result of 45.56±2.83%, while for an iModelAnalysis one of 45.56±2.85%. Pont analysis for conventional methods was 39.35±0.04 mm and 49.17±2.55 mm, while for iModelAnalysis it was 39.35±0.07 mm and 49.19±2.57mm. The mean of the duration of analysis using conventional methods was 1703.81±56.46 seconds, while for iModelAnalysis it was 990.06±34.87 seconds. A normality test confirmed that the data was normally distributed (p>0.05). The results of a paired sample t-test with p>0.05 showed that there was no significant difference between the results of each analysis, while there was significant difference in the time period of analysis. Conclusion: There was no difference in the analysis results. However, there was difference in the time period of analysis between conventional methods and that of iModelAnalysis.

Keywords


conventional; iModelAnalysis; result of analysis; time period of analysis

Full Text:

PDF

References


Lippold C, Kirschneck C, Schreiber K, Abukiress S, Tahvildari A, Moiseenko T, Danesh G. Methodological accuracy of digital and manual model analysis in orthodontics - a retrospective clinical study. Comput Biol Med. 2015; 62: 103–9.

Gupta G, Vaid NR. The world of orthodontic apps. APOS Trends Orthod. 2017; 7(2): 73–9.

Singh P. Orthodontic apps for smartphones. J Orthod. 2013; 40(3): 249–55.

Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi CL. Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2016; 149(2): 161–70.

Mamillapalli PK, Neela PK, Sesham VM. Model analysis on a smartphone. J Clin Orthodontics. 2012; 46(6): 356–8.

Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. 5th ed. St Louis-Missouri: Mosby Elsevier; 2012. p. 247-78.

Premkumar S. Textbook of orthodontics. New Delhi: Elsevier; 2015. p. 227.

Laksmihadiati TD, Ismaniati NA, Krisnawati. Akurasi pengukuran lengkung gigi rahang atas arah transversal hasil pemindaian laser model studi digital 3 dimensi. J PDGI. 2015; 64(2): 116–28.

Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofacial Res. 2011; 14: 1–16.

Sousa MVS, Vasconcelos EC, Janson G, Garib D, Pinzan A. Accuracy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2012; 142(2): 269–73.

Wan Hassan WN, Othman SA, Chan CS, Ahmad R, Ali SNA, Abd Rohim A. Assessing agreement in measurements of orthodontic study models: digital caliper on plaster models vs 3-dimensional software on models scanned by structured-light scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2016; 150(5): 886–95.

Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009; 136: 16.e1-16.e4.

Phulari BS. Orthodontics : principles and practice. New Delhi: Jaypee Brother Medical Publishers; 2011. p. 172-80.

Laviana A. Analisis model studi, sumber informasi penting bagi diagnosis ortodonti. Thesis. Bandung: Universitas Padjadjaran; 2008. p. 1-18.

Thilander B, Bjerklin K, Bondemark L. Essential orthodontics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2017. p. 89.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


View My Stats