Moreira Fernando César, Jacob Helder Baldi, Janson Guilherme Dos Reis Pereira, Garib Daniela Gamba
Instituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares (IPEN), Centro de Lasers e Aplicações (São Paulo/SP, Brazil).
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences College of Dentistry, Department of Developmental Sciences, Division of Orthodontics (Oklahoma, USA).
Dental Press J Orthod. 2025 Apr 7;30(1):e252451. doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.30.1.e252451.oar. eCollection 2025.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement between the predicted and the achieved tooth position planned by an orthodontic digital system.
Digital models of the setup (Predicted) and the treated (Treated) groups of 23 subjects with Class I malocclusion were obtained. Digital models (Predicted and Treated) of each patient were superimposed, and referential geometric planes were constructed for linear and angular measurements: arch perimeter, arch depth, intercanine and intermolar widths, mesiodistal crown angulation, and buccolingual crown inclination. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to establish the agreement between the measurements. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between groups.
Compared to Predicted group, the Treated group presented larger linear measurements for all measurements: 1) arch perimeter: 1.77±2.10 mm (maxilla) and 1.78±1.74 mm (mandible); 2) arch depth: 0.50±0.69 mm (maxilla) and 0.38±0.81 mm (mandible); 3) intercanine width: 0.30±0.98 mm (maxilla) and 0.49±0.64 mm (mandible), and; 4) intermolar width: 0.70±1.63 mm (maxilla) and 1.13±1.62 mm (mandible). Seven out of 14 angular measurements showed statistical differences between Predicted and Treated groups in the maxilla, while six out of 14 angular measurements were statistically significant between the two groups; the differences ranging from -8.91º to 1.91º and from -3.53° to 9.59° in the maxilla and mandible, respectively.
The agreement between the Predicted and Treated groups was majority within the limits. The predictions of the digital system were not accurate in some parameters; however, most of the differences were within clinical acceptable range. Although there are some inaccuracies, the limitations do not seem to interfere with clinical outcomes and the quality of the treatment.
本研究的目的是评估正畸数字系统所预测的牙齿位置与实际达到的牙齿位置之间的一致性。
获取了23例安氏I类错牙合患者的矫治前(预测)组和矫治后(治疗)组的数字模型。将每位患者的数字模型(预测和治疗)进行叠加,并构建参考几何平面用于线性和角度测量:牙弓周长、牙弓深度、尖牙间宽度和磨牙间宽度、牙冠近远中倾斜度以及牙冠颊舌向倾斜度。采用Bland-Altman分析来确定测量值之间的一致性。使用Spearman相关系数评估组间相关性。
与预测组相比,治疗组在所有测量值上的线性测量值均更大:1)牙弓周长:上颌为1.77±2.10mm,下颌为1.78±1.74mm;2)牙弓深度:上颌为0.50±0.69mm,下颌为0.38±0.81mm;3)尖牙间宽度:上颌为0.30±0.98mm,下颌为0.49±0.64mm;4)磨牙间宽度:上颌为0.70±1.63mm,下颌为1.13±1.62mm。14项角度测量中有7项在上颌的预测组和治疗组之间显示出统计学差异,而14项角度测量中有6项在两组之间具有统计学意义;上颌和下颌的差异分别为-8.91°至1.91°和-3.53°至9.59°。
预测组和治疗组之间的一致性大多在可接受范围内。数字系统在某些参数上的预测不准确;然而,大多数差异在临床可接受范围内。尽管存在一些不准确之处,但这些局限性似乎并未干扰临床结果和治疗质量。