Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Oral Investigations
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations 8/2019

01-08-2019 | Original Article

Reliability and intra-examiner agreement of orthodontic model analysis with a digital caliper on plaster and printed dental models

Authors: Vasiliki Koretsi, Constanze Kirschbauer, Peter Proff, Christian Kirschneck

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 8/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To investigate if orthodontic model analysis with a digital caliper can be interchangeably performed between plaster and printed dental models.

Materials and methods

Forty-eight plaster models were digitized with orthoX®scan (DENTAURUM) and 48 counterparts were printed with Objet30 Dental Prime (Stratasys). One examiner performed five repeated orthodontic model analyses (41 outcomes) with a digital caliper in each plaster and the corresponding printed model and was externally validated by a second examiner. Inter- and intra-examiner reliability and error were evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Dahlberg’s formula, intra-examiner agreement with Bland-Altman analyses and Lin’s correlation coefficients (CCCs), and changing bias with regression analyses.

Results

Inter- and intra-examiner ICCs and Dahlberg’s error were ≥ 0.75 and ≤ 0.5 mm, respectively, for most outcomes in both plaster and printed models. Intra-examiner agreement (systematic bias) between plaster and printed models ranged from − 0.45 to 0.45 mm. Ranges of limits of agreement were wide for cumulative outcomes, such as crowding maxilla and mandible (2.69 mm and 3.07 mm around zero, respectively). Tooth widths were measured slightly larger in printed models. Lin’s CCCs were ≥ 0.87 for all the outcomes between plaster and printed models, while no changing bias was detected.

Conclusion

If orthodontic model analyses are consistently performed, plaster casts and their corresponding printed models obtained with orthoX®scan and Objet30 Dental Prime can be interchangeably used for clinical purposes in orthodontics.

Clinical relevance

Orthodontic model analysis is important in treatment planning and printed dental models need to be validated regarding this diagnostic procedure.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Lee KY, Cho JW, Chang NY, Chae JM, Kang KH, Kim SC, Cho JH (2015) Accuracy of three-dimensional printing for manufacturing replica teeth. Korean J Orthod 45:217–225CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
7.
8.
Kottner J, Audigé L, Brorson S, Donner A, Gajewski BJ, Hróbjartsson A, Roberts C, Shoukri M, Streiner DL (2011) Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 64:96–106CrossRefPubMed
9.
Moyers RE (1988) Handbook of orthodontics, 4th edn. Year Book Medical Pub, Chicago
10.
Kamoen A, Dermaut L, Verbeeck R (2001) The clinical significance of error measurement in the interpretation of treatment results. Eur J Orthod 23:569–578CrossRefPubMed
11.
Houston WJ, Maher RE, McElroy D, Sherriff M (1986) Sources of error in measurements from cephalometric radiographs. Eur J Orthod 8:149–151CrossRefPubMed
12.
Lomax RG, Hahs-Vaughn DL (2012) An introduction to statistical concepts. Routledge, New York
13.
Kim HY (2013) Statistical notes for clinical researchers: evaluation of measurement error 1: using intraclass correlation coefficients. Restor Dent Endod 38:98–102CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRefPubMed
15.
Lin LI (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45:255–268CrossRefPubMed
16.
Bartlett JW, Frost C (2008) Reliability, repeatability and reproducibility: analysis of measurement errors in continuous variables. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31:466–475CrossRefPubMed
17.
Asquith J, Gillgrass T, Mossey P (2007) Three-dimensional imaging of orthodontic models: a pilot study. Eur J Orthod 29:517–522CrossRefPubMed
18.
Luu NS, Mandich M-A, Flores-Mir C, el-Bialy T, Heo G, Carey JP, Major PW (2014) The validity, reliability, and time requirement of study model analysis using cone-beam computed tomography-generated virtual study models. Orthod Craniofac Res 17:14–26CrossRefPubMed
19.
Burdock EI, Fleiss JL, Hardesty AS (1963) A new view of inter-observer agreement. Pers Psychol 16:373–384CrossRef
20.
Bootvong K, Liu Z, McGrath C, Hagg U, Wong RWK, Bendeus M, Yeung S (2010) Virtual model analysis as an alternative approach to plaster model analysis: reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 32:589–595CrossRefPubMed
21.
Kieser JA, Groeneveld HT (1991) The reliability of human odontometric data. J Dent Assoc S Afr 46:267–270PubMed
22.
Shellhart WC, Lange DW, Kluemper GT et al (1995) Reliability of the Bolton tooth-size analysis when applied to crowded dentitions. Angle Orthod 65:327–334PubMed
23.
Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ (2003) Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 124:101–105CrossRef
24.
Radeke J, von der Wense C, Lapatki BG (2014) Comparison of orthodontic measurements on dental plaster casts and 3D scans. J Orofac Orthop 75:264–274CrossRefPubMed
25.
Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi CL (2016) Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 149:161–170CrossRef
26.
Han UK, Vig KW, Weintraub JA et al (1991) Consistency of orthodontic treatment decisions relative to diagnostic records. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 100:212–219CrossRef
27.
Naish H, Dunbar C, Crouch-Baker J, Shah K, Wallis C, Atack NE, Sherriff M, Sandy JR, Ireland AJ (2016) Does a true knowledge of dental crowding affect orthodontic treatment decisions? Eur J Orthod 38:66–70CrossRefPubMed
28.
Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A (2011) Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 14:1–16CrossRefPubMed
29.
Baumrind S, Frantz RC (1971) The reliability of head film measurements. 1 Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 60:111–127CrossRefPubMed
30.
Luu NS, Nikolcheva LG, Retrouvey JM, Flores-Mir C, el-Bialy T, Carey JP, Major PW (2012) Linear measurements using virtual study models. Angle Orthod 82:1098–1106CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Bland JM, Altman DG (2003) Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 22:85–93CrossRefPubMed
32.
Hazeveld A, Huddleston Slater JJR, Ren Y (2014) Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 145:108–115CrossRef
33.
van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y (2012) Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One 7:e43312CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Patzelt SBM, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W (2014) Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 18:1687–1694CrossRefPubMed
35.
Ishida Y, Miyasaka T (2016) Dimensional accuracy of dental casting patterns created by 3D printers. Dent Mater J 35:250–256CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Reliability and intra-examiner agreement of orthodontic model analysis with a digital caliper on plaster and printed dental models
Authors
Vasiliki Koretsi
Constanze Kirschbauer
Peter Proff
Christian Kirschneck
Publication date
01-08-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 8/2019
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2772-8

Other articles of this Issue 8/2019

Clinical Oral Investigations 8/2019 Go to the issue

Original Article

The improvement of biocompatibility of adhesives

Original Article

Evaluation of wound healing and postoperative pain after oral mucosa laser biopsy with the aid of compound with chlorhexidine and sodium hyaluronate: a randomized double blind clinical trial

Correction

Correction to: The fate of root canals obturated with Thermafil: 10-year data for patients treated in a master’s program

Original Article

ERCC1, XPF and XPA—locoregional differences and prognostic value of DNA repair protein expression in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Original Article

Tooth substance removal for ceramic single crown materials—an in vitro comparison

Original Article

The fate of root canals obturated with Thermafil: 10-year data for patients treated in a master’s program