Comparison of Diagnostic Value of Cast Analyzer X Iranian Software versus Curve Expert Software for Arch Form Construction based on Mathematical Models
Journal of Dental School,
Vol. 32 No. 3 (2014),
27 July 2014
,
Page 167-175
https://doi.org/10.22037/jds.v32i3.24793
Abstract
Objective: For the assessment of primary arch form, different methods have been used including qualitative classifications, inter-canine and inter-molar widths and quantitative and numerical methods using mathematical models. The purpose of this study was to compare the validity and reliability of Cast Analyzer X Iranian software with those of Curve Expert Professional version 1.1 for arch form construction based on mathematical models.
Methods: This diagnostic, in vitro study was performed on 18 sets of dental casts with normal Class I occlusion. The clinical buccal points (bracket attachment sites)(CBPs) were marked on each tooth and their spatial coordinates were digitized using a three-dimensional (3D) laser scanning system. These coordinates were entered in Cast Analyzer X and Curve Expert software programs. Arch forms were constructed by the software programs using Brown’s beta function, Noroozi’s beta function and fourth order polynomial equation. The root mean square (RMS) of the distance from a reference point to their corresponding points on the curve was calculated. The RMS values in the two software programs were compared.
Results: The RMS values in Brown’s beta function, Noroozi’s beta function and fourth order polynomial equation were significantly different in the Cast Analyzer X software (p<0.001) and the fourth order polynomial equation had the lowest RMS. The difference in RMS values between the two software programs was not clinically considerable and was 0.45 and 0.68 mm for the fourth order polynomial equation and Brown’s beta function, respectively.
Conclusion: Considering the RMS values, the fourth order polynomial equation is the most suitable analysis for describing normal dental arch forms best fitted with the CBPs. Although the difference between the two software programs was statistically significant, this difference was not clinically noticeable. The RMS value was lower in Cast Analyzer X and consequently the fitting of curves with the landmarks (CBP) was better in the Iranian software.
- Dental arch
- Diagnosis
- Orthodontic
How to Cite
References
Andrews LF. The six keys to pcclusion. Am J Orthod 1972; 62: 296-309.
Case CS. Principles of retention in orthodontia. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124: 352- 361.
Riedel RA. A review of the retention problem. Angle Orthod 1960; 30: 179-199.
Nojima K, McLaughlin RP, Isshiki Y, Sinclair PM. A comparative study of Caucasian and Japanese mandibular clinical arch forms. Angle Orthod 2001; 71: 195-200.
Mclaughlin RP, Bennett JC. Arch form considerations for stability and esthetics. Rev Esp Ortod 1999; 29: 216-233.
Oda S, Arai K, Nakahara R. Commercially available archwire forms compared with normal dental arch forms in a Japanese population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 520-527.
de la Cruz A, Sampson P, Little RM, Artun J, Shapiro PA. Long-term changes in arch form after orthodontic treatment and retention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 107: 518-530.
Lu KH. An orthogonal analysis of the form, symmetry and asymmetry of the dental arch. Arch Oral Biol 1966; 11: 1057-1069.
Pepe SH. Polynomial and catenary curve fits to human dental arches. J Dent Res 1975; 54: 1124- 1132.
Sampson PD. Dental arch shape: a statistical analysis using conic sections. Am J Orthod 1981; 79: 535-548.
Richards LC, Townsend GC, Brown T, Burgess VB. Dental arch morphology in south Australian twins. Arch Oral Biol 1990; 35: 983-989.
Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A Jr, Tartaglia G. Mathematical definition of the shape of dental arches in human permanent healthy dentitions. Eur J Orthod 1994; 16: 287-294.
AlHarbi S, Alkofide EA, AlModi A. Mathematical analyses of dental arch curvature in normal occlusion. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 281-286.
Braun S, Hnat WP, Fender DE, Legan HL. The form of the human dental arch. Angle Orthod 1998; 68:29-36.
Battagel JM. Individualized catenary curves: their relationship to arch form and perimeter. Br J Orthod 1996; 23: 21-28.
BeGole EA. Application of the cubic spline function in the description of dental arch form. J Dent Res 1980; 59: 1549-1556.
Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Schmitz JH, Colombo A. Quantitative description of the morphology of the human palate by a mathematical equation. Celeft Palate Craniofac J 1998; 35: 396-401.
Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Colombo A, Carvajal R, Duncan V, Palomino H. Dental arch size in healthy human permanent dentitions: ethnic differences as assessed by discriminate analysis. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1999; 14: 153-162.
Noroozi H, Nik TH, Saeeda R.The dental arch form revisited. Angle Orthod 2001; 71: 386-389.
Arai K, Will LA. Subjective classification and objective analysis of the mandibular dental-arch form of orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139: e315-e321.
Fleiss JL. Design and analysis of clinical experiments. 1st Ed. John Wiley and Sons Inc 1986;
Chap 1: 8-14.
McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. Bracket placement with the preadjusted appliance. J Clin Orthod 1995; 29: 302-311.
Nouri M, Farzan A, Safavi MR, Akbarzadeh Baghban AR. The effect of the number of clinical bracket points on the accuracy of curve fitted to dental arch form by 3D method. The Journal of Islamic Dental Association of Iran (JIDA) 2012; 24: 104-10. [Persian]
Nouri M, Moshkelgosha V, Shamsa M, Akbarzadeh Baghban AR. Computerized software for selecting the most appropriate shape and size of archwires. J Dent Sch 2010; 28: 95-104.[Persian]
Lombardo L, Saba L, Scuzzo G, Takemoto K, Oteo L, Palma JC, et al. A new concept of anatomic lingual arch form. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2010; 138: 260.e1-260.e13.
- Abstract Viewed: 220 times
- PDF Downloaded: 157 times