Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: Digital vs plaster dental casts

Okunami, Troy R.; Kusnoto, Budi; BeGole, Ellen A.; Evans, Carla A.; Sadowsky, Cyril; Fadavi, Shahrbanoo

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.042

Cited by 96 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This advantage is also mentioned by some authors regarding digital models. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] In recent years, replacing conventional diagnostic methods with other more technologically advanced methods has become common in the medical and dental areas. 18,19 The use of digital setups seems to have the potential to reinforce this trend, which could mean further development in the process of storing information required for orthodontic diagnosis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of digital orthodontic setups

Barreto

Faber

Vogel

et al. 2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the reliability of digital orthodontic setup technology by comparing it with manual setups and models cast at the end of orthodontic treatment. Materials and Methods: Initial models, manual setups, and final models of 20 patients were used. The initial and final models, as well as the manual setups, were scanned using a 3Shape R-700 scanner, while the digital setups were fabricated based on the initial models using 3Shape OrthoAnalyzer software. Evaluation of the models based on the manual setup, digital setup, and final models of each patient was performed using the following linear measurements: intercanine widths, intermolar widths, and length of the upper and lower dental arches. Results:The results disclosed that none of the measures assessed through the manual setup, digital setup, and final models showed statistically significant differences (P . .05). Conclusions: Based on these findings, it can be inferred that digital setups are as effective and accurate as manual setups and constitute a tool for diagnosing and treatment planning that can be reliably reproduced in orthodontic treatments. (Angle Orthod. 2016;86:255-259.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of digital orthodontic setups

Barreto

Faber

Vogel

et al. 2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some comparisons of dental casts and digital scans of their impressions have found small, but significant differences between measurements when using certain measurement criteria but still allow clinically acceptable measurements. [3][4][5] Other studies using alternate measurement criteria, such as the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System, have found digital scans to have insufficient accuracy for several individual measurements compared with plaster casts [6][7][8] ; however, such stringent measurement tolerances are not required for clinical efficacy. The reliability of measurements taken on digital models from impressions has been proven to be as good as or better than measurements taken on plaster casts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of CBCT Digital Models and Traditional Models Using the Little's Index

Kau¹,

Littlefield²,

Rainy³

et al. 2010

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To determine if measurements obtained from digital models from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were comparable to the traditional method of digital study models by impressions. Materials and Methods: Digital models of 30 subjects were used. InVivoDental (Anatomage, San Jose, Calif) software was used to analyze CBCT scans taken by a Galileos cone beam scanner (Sirona, Charlotte, NC) with a field of view of 15 3 15 3 15 cm 3 and a voxel resolution of 0.125 mm. OrthoCAD (Cadent, Fairview, NJ) software was used to analyze impression scans of patients at different stages of orthodontic treatment. Impressions were taken using alginate and were mailed to OrthoCAD for digital conversion. The scans were then electronically returned in digital format for analysis. Results: The maxillary mean scores for the Little's Index were 9.65 mm for digital models and 8.87 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The mandibular mean scores for the Little's Index were 6.41 mm for digital models and 6.27 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The mean overjet measurements were 3.32 mm for digital models and 3.52 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The overbite measurements were 2.29 mm for digital models and 2.26 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The paired t-test showed no statistical significance between the differences in all measurements. Conclusions: CBCT digital models are as accurate as OrthoCAD digital models in making linear measurements for overjet, overbite, and crowding measurements (Angle Orthod. 2010;80:435-439.)

show abstract

“…The orthodontist is informed, and he downloads the file from the Internet and analyzes it with special 2D and 3D orthodontic softwares. Such a teleorthodontic system offers numerous benefits in the practice and markedly reduces processing and model storage costs (Okunami et al, 2007;Peluso et al, 2004). In the age of intense development of mobile communications, telemedicine in orthodontics has one more simple and, above all, practical use.…”

Section: Wwwintechopencommentioning

confidence: 99%