Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need scored on plaster and digital models
- PMID: 19329650
- DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn077
Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need scored on plaster and digital models
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare standard plaster models with their digital counterparts for the applicability of the Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need (ICON). Generated study models of 30 randomly selected patients: 30 pre- (T(0)) and 30 post- (T(1)) treatment. Two examiners, calibrated in the ICON, scored the digital and plaster models. The overall ICON scores were evaluated for reliability and reproducibility using kappa statistics and reliability coefficients. The values for reliability of the total and weighted ICON scores were generally high for the T(0) sample (range 0.83-0.95) but less high for the T(1) sample (range 0.55-0.85). Differences in total ICON score between plaster and digital models resulted in mostly statistically insignificant values (P values ranging from 0.07 to 0.19), except for observer 1 in the T(1) sample. No statistically different values were found for the total ICON score on either plaster or digital models. ICON scores performed on computer-based models appear to be as accurate and reliable as ICON scores on plaster models.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Jul;136(1):16.e1-4; discussion 16. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.019. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009. PMID: 19577140
-
Comparison of peer assessment rating (PAR) index scores of plaster and computer-based digital models.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Oct;128(4):431-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.04.035. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005. PMID: 16214623
-
Variations in orthodontic treatment planning decisions of Class II patients between virtual 3-dimensional models and traditional plaster study models.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Oct;130(4):485-91. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.022. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006. PMID: 17045148
-
[Special hard plaster models, hardness and durability].Nor Tannlaegeforen Tid. 1975 Jun;85(6):226-9. Nor Tannlaegeforen Tid. 1975. PMID: 1094409 Review. Norwegian. No abstract available.
-
When should we finish with a Class I molar relationship?Aust Orthod J. 2007 Nov;23(2):157-9. Aust Orthod J. 2007. PMID: 18200797 Review. No abstract available.
Cited by
-
Optical 3D scans for orthodontic diagnostics performed on full-arch impressions. Completeness of surface structure representation.J Orofac Orthop. 2015 Nov;76(6):493-507. doi: 10.1007/s00056-015-0309-1. J Orofac Orthop. 2015. PMID: 26250455
-
Pilot study on accuracy and dimensional stability of impression materials using industrial CT technology.J Orofac Orthop. 2011 Mar;72(2):111-24. doi: 10.1007/s00056-011-0015-6. J Orofac Orthop. 2011. PMID: 21503851 English, German.
-
Dimensional accuracy of jaw scans performed on alginate impressions or stone models: A practice-oriented study.J Orofac Orthop. 2015 Jul;76(4):351-65. doi: 10.1007/s00056-015-0296-2. J Orofac Orthop. 2015. PMID: 26123733
-
Reliability of Bolton analysis evaluation in tridimensional virtual models.Dental Press J Orthod. 2015 Oct;20(5):72-7. doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.20.5.072-077.oar. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015. PMID: 26560824 Free PMC article.
-
Accuracy and reliability of measurements performed using two different software programs on digital models generated using laser and computed tomography plaster model scanners.Korean J Orthod. 2020 Jan;50(1):13-25. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2020.50.1.13. Epub 2020 Jan 22. Korean J Orthod. 2020. PMID: 32042716 Free PMC article.
