Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Accuracy and validity of space analysis and irregularity index measurements using digital models Cover

Accuracy and validity of space analysis and irregularity index measurements using digital models

Open Access
|Dec 2023

References

  1. Redmond WR. Digital models: a new diagnostic tool. J Clin Orthod 2001;35:386–7.
  2. Hunter WS, Priest WR. Errors and discrepancies in measurement of tooth size. J Dent Res 1960;39:405–14.
  3. Brook AH, Pitts NB, Yau F, Sandar PK. An image analysis system for the determination of tooth dimensions from study casts: comparison with manual measurements of mesiodistal diameter. J Dent Res 1986;65:428–31.
  4. Champagne M. Reliability of measurements from photocopies of study models. J Clin Orthod 1992;26:648–50.
  5. Mok KH, Cooke MS. Space analysis: a comparison between sonic digitization (DigiGraph Workstation) and the digital caliper. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:653–61.
  6. Musich DR, Ackerman JL. The catenometer: a reliable device for estimating dental arch perimeter. Am J Orthod 1973;63:366–75.
  7. Rudge SJ, Jones PT, Hepenstal S, Bowden DE. The reliability of study model measurement in the evaluation of crowding. Eur J Orthod 1983;5:225–31.
  8. Schirmer UR, Wiltshire WA. Manual and computer-aided space analysis: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:676–80.
  9. Djeu G, Shelton C, Maganzini A. Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:292–8.
  10. Mayhew MJ, Computer-aided bracket placement for indirect bonding. J Clin Orthod 2005;39:653–60.
  11. Little RM. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod 1975;68: 554–63.
  12. Zilberman O, Huggare J, Parikakis K. Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod 2003;73:301–6.
  13. Mayers M, Firestone AR, Rashid R, Vig KW. Comparison of peer assessment rating (PAR) index scores of plaster and computer-based digital models. Am J Orthod 2005;128: 431–4.
  14. Okunami TR, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Evans C, Sadowsky C, Fadavi S. Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:51–6.
  15. Tomassetti J, Taloumis L, Denny J, Fisher J Jr. A comparison of 3 computerized Bolton tooth-size analyses with a commonly used method. Angle Orthod 2001;71:351–7.
  16. Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay O, Cangialosi T. Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:101–5.
  17. Tran AM, Rugh JD, Chacon JA, Hatch JP. Reliability and validity of a computer-based Little irregularity index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:349–51.
  18. Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW. Validity, reliability and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:794–803.
  19. Quimby M, Vig K, Rashid R, Firestone A, Mayers M. The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer based digital models. Angle Orthod 2004;74:298–303.
  20. Whetten JL, Williamson PC, Heo G, Varnhagen C, Major PW. 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;130:485–91.
  21. Staley RN, Kerber PE. A revision of the Hixon and Oldfather mixed dentition prediction method. Am J Orthod 1980;78:296–302.
  22. Tanaka MM, Johnston LE. The prediction of size of the unerupted canines and premolars in a contemporary orthodontic population. J Am Dent Assoc 1974;88:798–801.
  23. Little RM, Riedel RA, Årtun J. An evaluation of changes in mandibular anterior alignment from 10–20 years postretention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;93:423–8.
  24. Carey CW. Treatment planning and the technical program in the four fundamental treatment forms. Am J Orthod 1958; 44:887–98.
  25. Huckaba GW. Arch size analysis and tooth size prediction. Dent Clin North Am 1964;11:431–40.
  26. Cons NC, Jenny J, Kohout FJ. DAI: The Dental Aesthetic Index. Iowa City: College of Dentistry, University of Iowa 1986.
  27. Lunn H, Richmond S, Mitropoulos C. The use of the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN) as a public health tool: a pilot study. Community Dent Health 1993;10: 111–21.
  28. Vego L. A longitudinal study of mandibular arch perimeter. Angle Orthod 1962;32:187–92.
  29. Fisk RO. Normal mandibular arch changes between the ages of 9 and 16. J Can Dent Assoc 1966;32:652–8.
  30. Little RM, Wallen T, Riedel R. Stability and relapse of mandibular anterior alignment: first premolar extraction cases treated by traditional edgewise orthodontics. Am J Orthod 1981;80:349–65.
  31. Little RM. Stability and relapse of dental arch alignment. Br J Orthod 1990;17:235–41.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2008-0012 | Journal eISSN: 2207-7480 | Journal ISSN: 2207-7472
Language: English
Page range: 83 - 90
Submitted on: Mar 1, 2007
Accepted on: Jun 1, 2008
Published on: Dec 13, 2023
Published by: Australian Society of Orthodontists Inc.
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 times per year

© 2023 Roy W. Goonewardene, Mithran S. Goonewardene, John M. Razza, Kevin Murray, published by Australian Society of Orthodontists Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.