The European Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access published online on November 21, 2008
The European Journal of Orthodontics, doi:10.1093/ejo/cjn071
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
An alternative to study model storage
School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, UK
Address for correspondence, Dr N. A. Mandall, Department of Orthodontics, Tameside General Hospital, Fountain Street, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire OL6 9RW, UK, E-mail: nicky.mandall{at}tgh.nhs.uk
 |
Abstract |
|---|
The aim of this investigation was to evaluate whether the same orthodontic information can be obtained from study models and photographs of study models for the purposes of medico-legal reporting. Thirty sets of study models were obtained from orthodontic patients treated at the University of Manchester, UK. A mix of start and finish study models were chosen, with the start study models showing a range of malocclusions. Photographs of the study models were taken: anterior and right and left buccal views in occlusion and upper and lower occlusal views. Three examiners assessed the study models and photographs of the models in a random order. They recorded diagnostic information that would be useful for medico-legal reporting. This information was then compared for study models versus photographs of study models using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for interval data [overjet (mm), midline discrepancy (mm), and number of missing teeth] and kappa (k) and percentage agreement for the remaining variables.
Generally, agreement between the information obtained from study models versus photographs of study models was high with k values being above 0.70 for most variables. The exception to this was overbite with k values ranging from 0.66 to 0.74. When ICCs were considered, again the two methods compared very favourably.