Mahtab Nouri1, Sohrab Asefi2, Alireza Akbarzadeh Baghban3, Motahhareh Ahmadvand4, Mohammad Shamsa5. 1. Professor, Dentofacial Deformities Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Sciences and Orthodontic Department of School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Formerly, postgraduate in Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Electronic address: sohrabasefi67@yahoo.com. 3. Associate professor, Department of Basic Science, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 4. Resident, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 5. Microsoft developer, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Maintaining a patient's original arch form increases treatment stability. In this study, we assessed the agreement between subjective analyses of arch form and archwire selection by orthodontists and an objective method with Cast Analyzer Iranian X software (Khallaghane Mehr, Tehran, Iran). METHODS: Thirty-six casts with normal occlusion were scanned with a laser. The software generated the best-fit curve using a fourth-degree polynomial equation to the clinical bracket points on the casts; then it selected the best preformed nickel-titanium archwire based on the root mean square calculation either objectively or semiobjectively. Three orthodontists selected the best-fit curve and archwire subjectively using the casts. To assess intraexaminer reliability, the same orthodontists reevaluated 10 casts after 2 weeks. To assess interexaminer reliability, the 3 orthodontists performed the analyses with the software and on the casts. Agreements were evaluated with the intraclass correlation coefficient and Dahlberg's formula. RESULTS: The semiobjective method (visual selection of wire by orthodontists using the software) yielded the best results. The differences were clinically negligible between the objective (fully automated) and semiobjective methods (1.30 vs 1.36 mm). CONCLUSIONS: The objective method improved wire adaptation to the clinical bracket points. Agreement among orthodontists regarding wire selection will improve significantly when they are trained to use the software.
INTRODUCTION: Maintaining a patient's original arch form increases treatment stability. In this study, we assessed the agreement between subjective analyses of arch form and archwire selection by orthodontists and an objective method with Cast Analyzer Iranian X software (Khallaghane Mehr, Tehran, Iran). METHODS: Thirty-six casts with normal occlusion were scanned with a laser. The software generated the best-fit curve using a fourth-degree polynomial equation to the clinical bracket points on the casts; then it selected the best preformed nickel-titanium archwire based on the root mean square calculation either objectively or semiobjectively. Three orthodontists selected the best-fit curve and archwire subjectively using the casts. To assess intraexaminer reliability, the same orthodontists reevaluated 10 casts after 2 weeks. To assess interexaminer reliability, the 3 orthodontists performed the analyses with the software and on the casts. Agreements were evaluated with the intraclass correlation coefficient and Dahlberg's formula. RESULTS: The semiobjective method (visual selection of wire by orthodontists using the software) yielded the best results. The differences were clinically negligible between the objective (fully automated) and semiobjective methods (1.30 vs 1.36 mm). CONCLUSIONS: The objective method improved wire adaptation to the clinical bracket points. Agreement among orthodontists regarding wire selection will improve significantly when they are trained to use the software.