Creed Ben, Kau Chung How, English Jeryl D, Xia James J, Lee Robert P
Department of Orthodontics, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX; Department of Orthodontics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Orthodontic Department, Royal London Hospital, London, UK; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX; Department of Orthodontics, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX.
Semin Orthod. 2011 Mar 1;17(1):49-56. doi: 10.1053/j.sodo.2010.08.010.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether cone beam digital models are as accurate as OrthoCAD (Cadent, Inc, Carlstadt, NJ) digital models for the purposes of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Digital records of 30 subjects were retrospectively reviewed, and the digital models were obtained as OrthoCAD and InVivoDental (San Jose, CA) digital models. Seven parameters indicating linear measurements from predetermined landmarks were measured and analyzed. The analysis of variance and Bland and Altman Analysis were used to compare and evaluate measurements made from the study models generated from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and InVivoDental software. The mean difference between the maxillary InVivoDental models and the maxillary OrthoCAD models ranged from -0.57 to 0.44 mm. The analysis of variance for repeated measures ( < 0.001) was applied to all data obtained from the CBCT and OrthoCAD models. The results indicated a mean score of 35.12 and 35.12 mm, respectively. The mean difference of all values was -7.93 × 10 mm. The range of these values at the 95% confidence interval was -0.14 and 0.12 mm for the lower and upper limits, respectively. The results were not statistically significant for both groups. The Bland and Altman analysis was also applied to the data. In the maxilla, the results indicated that the mean difference between InVivoDental and OrthoCAD was -0.01 ± 1.24 mm. The range of the analysis indicated a spread of -2.40 mm and +2.40 mm. In the mandible, the results indicated that the mean difference between InVivoDental and OrthoCAD was -0.01 ± 1.21 mm. The range of the analysis indicated a spread of -2.36 mm and +2.37 mm. The results showed that the linear measurements obtained from CBCT image casts indicated a good level of accuracy when compared with OrthoCAD models. The accuracy was considered adequate for initial diagnosis and treatment planning in orthodontics.
本研究的目的是确定在正畸诊断和治疗计划方面，锥形束数字模型是否与OrthoCAD（Cadent公司，新泽西州卡尔施塔特）数字模型一样准确。对30名受试者的数字记录进行了回顾性分析，并获取了OrthoCAD和InVivoDental（加利福尼亚州圣何塞）数字模型的数字模型。测量并分析了7个表示从预定标志点进行线性测量的参数。采用方差分析和Bland-Altman分析来比较和评估由锥形束计算机断层扫描（CBCT）和InVivoDental软件生成的研究模型所做的测量。上颌InVivoDental模型与上颌OrthoCAD模型之间的平均差值在-0.57至0.44毫米之间。对从CBCT和OrthoCAD模型获得的所有数据应用重复测量方差分析（<0.001）。结果表明，平均得分分别为35.12和35.12毫米。所有值的平均差值为-7.93×10毫米。在95%置信区间，这些值的范围下限和上限分别为-0.14和0.12毫米。两组结果均无统计学意义。还对数据进行了Bland-Altman分析。在上颌中，结果表明InVivoDental和OrthoCAD之间的平均差值为-0.01±1.24毫米。分析范围显示为-2.40毫米至+2.40毫米。在下颌中，结果表明InVivoDental和OrthoCAD之间的平均差值为-0.01±1.21毫米。分析范围显示为-2.36毫米至+2.37毫米。结果表明，与OrthoCAD模型相比，从CBCT图像模型获得的线性测量显示出良好的准确性水平。该准确性被认为足以用于正畸的初步诊断和治疗计划。
