• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Digital Models as an Alternative to Plaster Casts in Assessment of Orthodontic Treatment Outcomes.数字模型作为评估正畸治疗效果时替代石膏模型的方法
ScientificWorldJournal. 2018 Jun 12;2018:9819384. doi: 10.1155/2018/9819384. eCollection 2018.
2
Comparison of peer assessment rating (PAR) index scores of plaster and computer-based digital models.石膏模型和基于计算机的数字模型的同行评估评级（PAR）指数得分比较。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Oct;128(4):431-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.04.035.
3
Validation of the complexity and treatment outcome components of the index of complexity, outcome, and need (ICON).复杂性、结果及需求指数（ICON）中复杂性和治疗结果部分的验证
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Sep;124(3):244-8. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00399-8.
4
Comparing the reliability and accuracy of clinical measurements using plaster model and the digital model system based on crowding severity.基于拥挤严重程度比较使用石膏模型和数字模型系统的临床测量的可靠性和准确性。
J Chin Med Assoc. 2018 Sep;81(9):842-847. doi: 10.1016/j.jcma.2017.11.011.
5
Are the Peer Assessment Rating Index and the Index of Treatment Complexity, Outcome, and Need suitable measures for orthognathic outcomes?同行评估评级指数以及治疗复杂性、结果和需求指数是否适合用于正颌手术结果的评估？
Eur J Orthod. 2006 Oct;28(5):462-6. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cji120. Epub 2006 Apr 28.
6
Agreement of in vitro orthodontic measurements on dental plaster casts and digital models using Maestro 3D ortho studio software.使用 Maestro 3D 正畸工作室软件在牙石膏模型和数字模型上进行正畸测量的一致性。
Clin Exp Dent Res. 2022 Oct;8(5):1149-1157. doi: 10.1002/cre2.605. Epub 2022 Jun 19.
7
Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements.石膏模型与数字研究模型的有效性、可靠性和可重复性：同行评估评分与Bolton分析及其组成测量的比较
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Jun;129(6):794-803. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.08.023.
8
Measurements using orthodontic analysis software on digital models obtained by 3D scans of plaster casts : Intrarater reliability and validity.使用正畸分析软件对石膏模型三维扫描获得的数字模型进行测量：评估者内信度和效度。
J Orofac Orthop. 2016 Jan;77(1):22-30. doi: 10.1007/s00056-015-0004-2. Epub 2016 Jan 11.
9
Relationship between index of complexity, outcome and need, dental aesthetic index, peer assessment rating index, and American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system.复杂指数、治疗结果与需求、牙齿美学指数、同伴评价等级指数以及美国正畸医师委员会客观评分系统之间的关系。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Feb;131(2):248-52. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.045.
10
Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need scored on plaster and digital models.在石膏模型和数字模型上评分的复杂性、结果和需求指数。
Eur J Orthod. 2009 Jun;31(3):281-6. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjn077. Epub 2009 Mar 27.

引用本文的文献

1
Reproducibility and reliability of dental arch measurements: comparing of manual, digital, and app-based methods.牙弓测量的可重复性和可靠性：手动、数字和基于应用程序的方法比较
BMC Oral Health. 2024 Dec 30;24(1):1568. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-05392-2.
2
The Efficacy of Diagnostic Plaster Models in Orthodontic Diagnosis and Treatment Planning.诊断石膏模型在正畸诊断和治疗计划中的功效
Diagnostics (Basel). 2024 Sep 25;14(19):2124. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14192124.
3
Digital Quantification of Occlusal Contacts: A Methodological Study.数字化咬合接触定量分析：一种方法学研究。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 May 16;18(10):5297. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18105297.
4
A Comparative Analysis of Tooth Size Discrepancy between Male and Female Subjects Presenting with a Class I Malocclusion.对呈现安氏Ⅰ类错牙合的男性和女性受试者牙齿大小差异的比较分析。
ScientificWorldJournal. 2018 Jul 15;2018:7641908. doi: 10.1155/2018/7641908. eCollection 2018.

本文引用的文献

1
Virtual model analysis as an alternative approach to plaster model analysis: reliability and validity.虚拟模型分析作为石膏模型分析的替代方法：可靠性和有效性。
Eur J Orthod. 2010 Oct;32(5):589-95. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjp159. Epub 2010 Feb 17.
2
Validity, reliability and reproducibility of three methods used to measure tooth widths for bolton analyses.用于Bolton分析的三种测量牙宽度方法的有效性、可靠性和可重复性。
Aust Orthod J. 2009 Nov;25(2):97-103.
3
Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts.数字模型与石膏牙模的空间分析评估比较。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Jul;136(1):16.e1-4; discussion 16. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.019.
4
Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need scored on plaster and digital models.在石膏模型和数字模型上评分的复杂性、结果和需求指数。
Eur J Orthod. 2009 Jun;31(3):281-6. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjn077. Epub 2009 Mar 27.
5
Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.组内相关系数：在评估评分者可靠性中的应用。
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.86.2.420.
6
Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models.使用电子模型和石膏模型进行空间分析的准确性。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Sep;132(3):346-52. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.044.
7
Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements.石膏模型与数字研究模型的有效性、可靠性和可重复性：同行评估评分与Bolton分析及其组成测量的比较
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Jun;129(6):794-803. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.08.023.
8
Comparison of peer assessment rating (PAR) index scores of plaster and computer-based digital models.石膏模型和基于计算机的数字模型的同行评估评级（PAR）指数得分比较。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Oct;128(4):431-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.04.035.
9
Assessment of the accuracy of a three-dimensional imaging system for archiving dental study models.用于存档牙科研究模型的三维成像系统准确性评估。
J Orthod. 2003 Sep;30(3):219-23. doi: 10.1093/ortho/30.3.219.
10
Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models.数字化模型与石膏模型测量结果的比较。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Jul;124(1):101-5. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00152-5.

数字模型作为评估正畸治疗效果时替代石膏模型的方法

Digital Models as an Alternative to Plaster Casts in Assessment of Orthodontic Treatment Outcomes.

作者信息

Leung Chung-Yan Vanessa, Yang Yanqi, Liao Chongshan, Hägg Urban, Wong Ricky Wing Kit, McGrath Colman, Gu Min

机构信息

Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, 34 Hospital Road, Hong Kong.

Department of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery Cleft Center (Craniofacial Orthodontics), United Christian Hospital, 130 Hip Wo Street, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong.

出版信息

ScientificWorldJournal. 2018 Jun 12;2018:9819384. doi: 10.1155/2018/9819384. eCollection 2018.

DOI:10.1155/2018/9819384
PMID:30008622
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6020455/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the use of digital models and plaster casts in assessing the improvement in occlusion following orthodontic treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Digital models and plaster casts of 39 consecutive patients at pre- and posttreatment stages were obtained and assessed using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index and the Index of Complexity and Treatment Need (ICON). PAR and ICON scores were compared at individual and group levels. Categorization of improvement level was compared using Kappa () statistics.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in neither PAR scores ( > 0.05) nor ICON scores ( > 0.05) between digital and plaster cast assessments. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) values for changes in PAR and ICON scores were excellent (ICC > 0.80). Agreement of ratings of occlusal improvement level between digital and plaster model assessments was 0.83 () for PAR and 0.59 () for ICON, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The study supported the use of digital models as an alternative to plaster casts when assessing changes in occlusion at the 'individual patient' level using ICON or PAR. However, it could not fully support digital models as an alternate to plaster casts at 'the group level' (as in the case of clinical audit/research).

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较在评估正畸治疗后咬合改善情况时数字模型和石膏模型的使用。

材料与方法

获取39例连续患者治疗前和治疗后的数字模型及石膏模型，并使用同行评估评分（PAR）指数和复杂性与治疗需求指数（ICON）进行评估。在个体和组水平上比较PAR和ICON评分。使用Kappa（κ）统计量比较改善水平的分类。

结果

数字模型评估和石膏模型评估之间，PAR评分（P>0.05）和ICON评分（P>0.05）均无显著差异。PAR和ICON评分变化的组内相关系数（ICC）值极佳（ICC>0.80）。数字模型评估和石膏模型评估之间，咬合改善水平评级的一致性，PAR为0.83（κ），ICON为0.59（κ）。

结论

该研究支持在使用ICON或PAR在“个体患者”水平评估咬合变化时，使用数字模型替代石膏模型。然而，在“组水平”（如临床审计/研究的情况），它不能完全支持数字模型替代石膏模型。