The validity, reliability, and time requirement of study model analysis using cone-beam computed tomography-generated virtual study models

• Published in: Orthodontics & craniofacial research 2014-02, Vol.17 (1), p.14-26
• Main Authors: Luu, N. S., Mandich, M-A., Flores-Mir, C., El-Bialy, T., Heo, G., Carey, J. P., Major, P. W.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anatomic Landmarks - anatomy & histology; Bicuspid - anatomy & histology; Cephalometry - statistics & numerical data; cone-beam computed tomography; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - statistics & numerical data; Cuspid - anatomy & histology; Dental Arch - anatomy & histology; dental models; Dental Models - classification; Dental Models - statistics & numerical data; Dentistry; Humans; imaging; Mandible - anatomy & histology; Maxilla - anatomy & histology; Molar - anatomy & histology; odontometry; Odontometry - statistics & numerical data; Reproducibility of Results; Retrospective Studies; Studies; three-dimensional; Time Factors; Tomography; User-Computer Interface; Validity
• ISSN: 1601-6335; 1601-6343
• DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12024

Structured Objectives 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. Setting and Sample Population 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. Materials and Methods 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 t‐tests and repeated‐measures anova. Results 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. Conclusions 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.