Skip Navigation


The European Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access originally published online on March 27, 2009
The European Journal of Orthodontics 2009 31(3):281-286; doi:10.1093/ejo/cjn077
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
31/3/281    most recent
cjn077v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Veenema, A. C.
Right arrow Articles by Kuijpers-Jagtman, A. M.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Veenema, A. C.
Right arrow Articles by Kuijpers-Jagtman, A. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

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

A. C. Veenema*, C. Katsaros***, S. C. Boxum**, E. M. Bronkhorst* and A. M. Kuijpers-Jagtman*

* Departments of Orthodontics and Oral Biology and Community and Restorative Dentistry, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre
** Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Centre Groningen, The Netherlands
*** Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University of Bern, Switzerland

Address for correspondence Professor A. M. Kuijpers-Jagtman, Department of Orthodontics and Oral Biology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, NL–6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands, E-mail: orthodontics{at}dent.umcn.nl


  Abstract

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- (T0) and 30 post- (T1) 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 T0 sample (range 0.83–0.95) but less high for the T1 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 T1 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.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.