Literature DB >> 29523897

Coordinating bracket torque and incisor inclination : Part 2: Reproducibility and statistical measures of the torque coordination angle (TCA).

H Sino1, B Zimmer2, I Schelper1, S Schenk-Kazan1, F Streibelt1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the reproducibility and statistical measures of the torque coordination angle (TCA).
METHODS: A total of 107 final cephalograms and corresponding casts were included, all reflecting treatment outcomes that met high qualitative standards, one of them being a Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) score of ≤3. Based on these records, the TCA was measured as a parameter to identify differences related to tooth morphology and bracket position between the torque-relevant reference plane at the bracket base and the long axis of a tooth. All measurements were performed on upper and lower central incisors (U1 and L1).
RESULTS: Several reproducibility assessments for the TCA measurements yielded good results, including objectivity at 1.26 ± 0.81° (U1) or 1.41 ± 1.18° (L1), examiner reliability at 1.30 ± 0.97° (U1) or 1.25 ± 0.82° (L1), and method reliability at 1.80 ± 1.13° (U1) or 1.53 ± 1.07° (L1). The statistical measures revealed a high degree of interindividual variability. With bracket placement 4.5 mm (U1) or 4.0 mm (L1) above the incisal edge, the differences between the maximum and minimum TCA values were similarly large in both jaws (21.0° for U1 or 20.0° for L1), given mean TCA values of 24.6 ± 3.6° (U1) or 22.9 ± 4.3° (L1). Moving the bracket placement from 3.5 to 5.5 mm (U1) or from 3.0 to 5.0 mm (L1) changed the mean TCA values by 4.5° (U1) or 3.2° (L1).
CONCLUSIONS: The TCA is a suitable cephalometric parameter to identify differences related to tooth morphology and bracket placement. Given its high interindividual variability, the fixed torque value of a specific bracket system should not be expected to produce the same incisor inclinations across patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bracket position; Dental morphology; Reproducibility of results; Tooth axis; Torque

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29523897     DOI: 10.1007/s00056-018-0130-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orofac Orthop        ISSN: 1434-5293            Impact factor:   1.938


  23 in total

1.  The reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks: an experimental study on skulls.

Authors:  U Hägg; M S Cooke; T C Chan; T T Tng; P Y Lau
Journal:  Aust Orthod J       Date:  1998-10

2.  Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry.

Authors:  Y J Chen; S K Chen; H F Chang; K C Chen
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of conventional and digital methods.

Authors:  S F Albarakati; K S Kula; A A Ghoneima
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.419

4.  Reliability of computer-generated cephalometrics.

Authors:  Y Nimkarn; P G Miles
Journal:  Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg       Date:  1995

5.  The reliability of head film measurements. 2. Conventional angular and linear measures.

Authors:  S Baumrind; R C Frantz
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1971-11

6.  Inter- and intra-observer identification of landmarks used in the Delaire analysis.

Authors:  S Haynes; M N Chau
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Variability in three morphologic features of the permanent maxillary central incisor.

Authors:  R M Bryant; P L Sadowsky; J B Hazelrig
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1984-07

8.  The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements.

Authors:  W J Houston
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1983-05

9.  Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis.

Authors:  Erkan Celik; Omur Polat-Ozsoy; T Ufuk Toygar Memikoglu
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods.

Authors:  Omur Polat-Ozsoy; Aylin Gokcelik; T Ufuk Toygar Memikoglu
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2009-04-06       Impact factor: 3.075

View more
  1 in total

1.  Implications of pretreatment incisor inclinations for the achievement of cephalometric normal values-a study on two patient collectives.

Authors:  B Zimmer; H Sino; S Schenk-Kazan
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 1.938

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.