Hsiu-Ching Ko1, Weitao Liu2, Derek Hou2, Sepideh Torkan2, Charles Spiekerman3, Greg J Huang2. 1. Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. Electronic address: hck1015@uw.edu. 2. Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. 3. Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in orthodontists' treatment plans based on digital models compared with plaster models. Additionally, we assessed whether digital or plaster models influence the reliability of orthodontists' treatment plans, as well as the amount of time required to arrive at the plan. METHODS: Sixteen orthodontists planned treatment for 20 patients at 2 time points using either the same or different model formats (digital or plaster). The treatment plan decisions and time spent making the plans were recorded. The permutation test and a random effects model were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The treatment plans arrived at with digital and plaster models were similar. With respect to extractions, the mean difference between digital and plaster formats was 11.9% (95% CI, 7.5%-16.3%). For surgery, the mean difference was 9.4% (95% CI, 5.0%-13.8%). There was no significant difference in the agreement rate between those who viewed models in different formats compared with those who viewed models twice in the same format (P >0.05). The time spent to plan treatment with plaster models was not significantly different from the time spent with digital models (P = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, digital models can be substituted for plaster models with no significant differences in the final plans, the reliability of the plans, and the time required to create the plan.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in orthodontists' treatment plans based on digital models compared with plaster models. Additionally, we assessed whether digital or plaster models influence the reliability of orthodontists' treatment plans, as well as the amount of time required to arrive at the plan. METHODS: Sixteen orthodontists planned treatment for 20 patients at 2 time points using either the same or different model formats (digital or plaster). The treatment plan decisions and time spent making the plans were recorded. The permutation test and a random effects model were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The treatment plans arrived at with digital and plaster models were similar. With respect to extractions, the mean difference between digital and plaster formats was 11.9% (95% CI, 7.5%-16.3%). For surgery, the mean difference was 9.4% (95% CI, 5.0%-13.8%). There was no significant difference in the agreement rate between those who viewed models in different formats compared with those who viewed models twice in the same format (P >0.05). The time spent to plan treatment with plaster models was not significantly different from the time spent with digital models (P = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, digital models can be substituted for plaster models with no significant differences in the final plans, the reliability of the plans, and the time required to create the plan.