INTRODUCTION: In 1999, after 3 years of field testing, the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) implemented a grading system for posttreatment orthodontic models and panoramic radiographs, to make the phase III examination both fair and objective. In the ABO's objective grading system, 7 occlusal criteria (tooth alignment, vertical positioning of marginal ridges, buccolingual inclination of posterior teeth, occlusal relationship, occlusal contacts, overjet, and interproximal contacts) are measured on plaster models to assess a patient's final occlusion. To date, no study has evaluated the ABO grading system for use on digital models. The purpose of this study was to determine whether digital models can be used with reasonable accuracy and reliability for assessing patients' final occlusions. METHODS: Plaster and digital (OrthoCAD, Cadent Inc, Carlstadt, NJ) posttreatment models of 24 patients were gathered from the postgraduate orthodontic clinic at Columbia University School of Dental and Oral Surgery. The plaster models were scored by using the ABO measuring gauge and the 7 criteria of the ABO grading system. A second analysis was done on the digital models. To determine interexaminer error, a fourth-year dental student at Columbia University served as a second examiner and repeated all the analyses. RESULTS: The means of the total score and those for marginal ridges, occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, overjet, and interproximal contacts were not significantly different between plaster and digital models. However, the means for alignment and buccolingual inclination were significantly different. In addition, the scorings of 2 examiners differed for the 2 methods. CONCLUSIONS: This finding suggests that alignment and buccolingual inclination should be reevaluated with both methods, and adequate calibration of the examiners is essential to achieve repeatability in both methods. Digital models might be acceptable for use in the ABO model examination.
INTRODUCTION: In 1999, after 3 years of field testing, the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) implemented a grading system for posttreatment orthodontic models and panoramic radiographs, to make the phase III examination both fair and objective. In the ABO's objective grading system, 7 occlusal criteria (tooth alignment, vertical positioning of marginal ridges, buccolingual inclination of posterior teeth, occlusal relationship, occlusal contacts, overjet, and interproximal contacts) are measured on plaster models to assess a patient's final occlusion. To date, no study has evaluated the ABO grading system for use on digital models. The purpose of this study was to determine whether digital models can be used with reasonable accuracy and reliability for assessing patients' final occlusions. METHODS: Plaster and digital (OrthoCAD, Cadent Inc, Carlstadt, NJ) posttreatment models of 24 patients were gathered from the postgraduate orthodontic clinic at Columbia University School of Dental and Oral Surgery. The plaster models were scored by using the ABO measuring gauge and the 7 criteria of the ABO grading system. A second analysis was done on the digital models. To determine interexaminer error, a fourth-year dental student at Columbia University served as a second examiner and repeated all the analyses. RESULTS: The means of the total score and those for marginal ridges, occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, overjet, and interproximal contacts were not significantly different between plaster and digital models. However, the means for alignment and buccolingual inclination were significantly different. In addition, the scorings of 2 examiners differed for the 2 methods. CONCLUSIONS: This finding suggests that alignment and buccolingual inclination should be reevaluated with both methods, and adequate calibration of the examiners is essential to achieve repeatability in both methods. Digital models might be acceptable for use in the ABO model examination.
Authors: Stefanie Steinhäuser-Andresen; Andreas Detterbeck; Christoph Funk; Michael Krumm; Stefan Kasperl; Alexandra Holst; Ursula Hirschfelder Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 1.938
Authors: Nghe S Luu; Liliya G Nikolcheva; Jean-Marc Retrouvey; Carlos Flores-Mir; Tarek El-Bialy; Jason P Carey; Paul W Major Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Dong-Soon Choi; Young-Mok Jeong; Insan Jang; Paul George Jost-Brinkmann; Bong-Kuen Cha Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.079