The validity, reliability, and time requirement of study model analysis using cone‐beam computed tomography–generated virtual study models. (17th April 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Luu, N. S.; Mandich, M‐A.; Flores‐Mir, C.; El‐Bialy, T.; Heo, G.; Carey, J. P.; Major, P. W.
• Is Part Of: Orthodontics and craniofacial research. Volume 17:Number 1(2014:Feb.)
• Page Start: 14
• Page End: 26
• Publication Date: 2013-04-17
• Subjects: Skull -- Growth -- Periodicals; Facial bones -- Growth -- Periodicals; Orthodontics -- Periodicals; Orthodontics, Corrective -- Periodicals; Orthodontic appliances -- Periodicals; 617.51
• DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12024
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1601-6335

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" xml:lang="en" id="ocr12024-abs-0001"> <title>Structured Abstract</title> <sec id="ocr12024-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Objectives</title> <p>To investigate the validity, reliability, and time spent to perform a full orthodontic study model analysis (SMA) on cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT)‐generated dental models (Anatomodels) compared with conventional plaster models and a subset of extracted premolars.</p> </sec> <sec id="ocr12024-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Setting and Sample Population</title> <p>A retrospective sample of 30 consecutive patient records with fully erupted permanent dentition, good‐quality plaster study models, and CBCT scans. Twenty‐two extracted premolars were available from eleven of these patients.</p> </sec> <sec id="ocr12024-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Materials and Methods</title> <p>Five evaluators participated in the inter‐rater reliability study and one evaluator for the intrarater reliability and validity studies. Agreement was assessed by ICC and cross‐tabulations, while mean differences were investigated using paired‐sample <italic>t‐</italic>tests and repeated‐measures <sc>anova</sc>.</p> </sec> <sec id="ocr12024-sec-0005" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>For all three modalities studied, intrarater reliability was excellent, inter‐rater reliability was moderate to excellent, validity was poor to moderate, and performing SMA on Anatomodels took twice as long as on plaster.</p> </sec> <sec id="ocr12024-sec-0006" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusions</title> <p>Study model analysis using CBCT‐generated study models was reliable but not always valid and required more time to perform when compared with plaster models.</p> </sec> </abstract>