Evaluation of CBCT Digital Models and Traditional Models Using the Little’s Index

 

ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine if measurements obtained from digital models from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were comparable to the traditional method of digital study models by impressions.

Materials and Methods: Digital models of 30 subjects were used. InVivoDental (Anatomage, San Jose, Calif) software was used to analyze CBCT scans taken by a Galileos cone beam scanner (Sirona, Charlotte, NC) with a field of view of 15 3 15 3 15 cm3 and a voxel resolution of 0.125 mm. OrthoCAD (Cadent, Fairview, NJ) software was used to analyze impression scans of patients at different stages of orthodontic treatment. Impressions were taken using alginate and were mailed to OrthoCAD for digital conversion. The scans were then electronically returned in digital format for analysis.

Results: The maxillary mean scores for the Little’s Index were 9.65 mm for digital models and 8.87 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The mandibular mean scores for the Little’s Index were 6.41 mm for digital models and 6.27 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The mean overjet measurements were 3.32 mm for digital models and 3.52 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The overbite measurements were 2.29 mm for digital models and 2.26 mm for InVivoDental models, respectively. The paired t-test showed no statistical significance between the differences in all measurements.

Conclusions: CBCT digital models are as accurate as OrthoCAD digital models in making linear measurements for overjet, overbite, and crowding measurements (Angle Orthod. 2010;80:435–439.)

Paper Critique:

The study is retrospective study.

Measurments were reliable so that they are repeated with same results among the two observers.

The samples were taken in both groups from same patients , so that the study was adequately controlled.

We conclude that it is a strong article.

**

Kau CH, Littlefield J, Rainy N, Nguyen JT, Creed B. Evaluation of CBCT digital models and traditional models using the Little’s Index. Angle Orthod 80:435-439, 2010.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s