Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need scored on plaster and digital models.

The aim of this study was to compare standard plaster models with their digital counterparts for the applicability of the Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need (ICON). Generated study models of 30 randomly selected patients: 30 pre- (T(0)) and 30 post- (T(1)) treatment. Two examiners, calibrated in the ICON, scored the digital and plaster models. The overall ICON scores were evaluated for reliability and reproducibility using kappa statistics and reliability coefficients. The values for reliability of the total and weighted ICON scores were generally high for the T(0) sample (range 0.83-0.95) but less high for the T(1) sample (range 0.55-0.85). Differences in total ICON score between plaster and digital models resulted in mostly statistically insignificant values (P values ranging from 0.07 to 0.19), except for observer 1 in the T(1) sample. No statistically different values were found for the total ICON score on either plaster or digital models. ICON scores performed on computer-based models appear to be as accurate and reliable as ICON scores on plaster models.

[1]  S. Richmond,et al.  The development of the index of complexity, outcome and need (ICON). , 2000, Journal of orthodontics.

[2]  W J Houston,et al.  The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. , 1983, American journal of orthodontics.

[3]  Oded Zilberman,et al.  Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[4]  Thomas J Cangialosi,et al.  Evaluation of the accuracy of digital model analysis for the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system for dental casts. , 2005, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[5]  Budi Kusnoto,et al.  Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts. , 2007, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[6]  Paul W Major,et al.  Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. , 2006, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[7]  S. Richmond,et al.  International comparisons of professional assessments in orthodontics: Part 1--Treatment need. , 1998, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[8]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Practical statistics for medical research , 1990 .

[9]  S. Richmond,et al.  Quality control in orthodontics: indices of treatment need and treatment standards , 1991, British Dental Journal.

[10]  E. Begole,et al.  Relationship between index of complexity, outcome and need, dental aesthetic index, peer assessment rating index, and American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. , 2007, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[11]  Paul W Major,et al.  Variations in orthodontic treatment planning decisions of Class II patients between virtual 3-dimensional models and traditional plaster study models. , 2006, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[12]  S. E. Owens,et al.  Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics. , 1998, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[13]  H. L. Draker.  Handicapping labio-lingual deviations: A proposed index for public health purposes☆☆☆ , 1960 .

[14]  J. Fischer,et al.  A comparison of 3 computerized Bolton tooth-size analyses with a commonly used method. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[15]  J. Salzmann.  Handicapping malocclusion assessment to establish treatment priority. , 1968, American Journal of Orthodontics.

[16]  A. Jacobson,et al.  An evaluation of the use of digital study models in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[17]  Thomas J Cangialosi,et al.  Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. , 2003, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[18]  C. J. Summers.  The occlusal index: a system for identifying and scoring occlusal disorders. , 1971, American journal of orthodontics.

[19]  B. Prahl-Andersen,et al.  The reliability and validity of the Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need for determining treatment need in Dutch orthodontic practice. , 2006, European journal of orthodontics.

[20]  S. Richmond,et al.  Calibration of dentists in the use of occlusal indices. , 1995, Community dentistry and oral epidemiology.

[21]  K. Vig,et al.  A comparison of the reliability and validity of 3 occlusal indexes of orthodontic treatment need. , 2001, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[22]  H. L. Draker.  HANDICAPPING LABIO‐LINGUAL DEVIATIONS: A PROPOSED INDEX FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PURPOSES* , 1958 .

[23]  S. Richmond,et al.  International comparisons of professional assessments in orthodontics: Part 2--treatment outcome. , 1998, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[24]  C D Stephens,et al.  The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. , 1992, European journal of orthodontics.

[25]  Katherine W L Vig,et al.  Comparison of peer assessment rating (PAR) index scores of plaster and computer-based digital models. , 2005, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[26]  P. Brook,et al.  The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. , 1989, European journal of orthodontics.

[27]  C. Daniels,et al.  A comparison of the Index of Complexity Outcome and Need (ICON) with the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) and the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN) , 2002, British Dental Journal.

[28]  Allen R Firestone,et al.  The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.