Diagnostic performance of ClinCheck, Dolphin Imaging, and 3D Slicer software for Bolton discrepancy analysis.

Thalita Teixeira Santana, Flávio Copello, Guido Artemio Marañón-Vásquez, Lincoln Issamu Nojima, Eduardo Franzotti Sant'Anna
{"title":"Diagnostic performance of ClinCheck, Dolphin Imaging, and 3D Slicer software for Bolton discrepancy analysis.","authors":"Thalita Teixeira Santana, Flávio Copello, Guido Artemio Marañón-Vásquez, Lincoln Issamu Nojima, Eduardo Franzotti Sant'Anna","doi":"10.2319/022724-156.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the diagnostic performance of ClinCheck, Dolphin Imaging orthodontic software, and 3D Slicer for the analysis of Bolton discrepancy (BD).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Fifty-five pairs of early-stage digital models of patients treated with Invisalign were printed to measure the BD by manual method with a digital caliper (gold standard). The discrepancy values calculated by ClinCheck were obtained. In addition, the sample STL files were measured using Dolphin Imaging and 3D Slicer software to obtain BD values. To assess reliability, precision, and accuracy of the methods, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Dahlberg's formula, paired t-tests, and the Bland-Altman method were used, respectively. Repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni post hoc test was used to assess the difference between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The three methods showed reliable measurements (ICC ≥ 0.7), with the values of anterior Bolton slightly higher than overall Bolton. Measurements for the anterior Bolton showed higher precision (Dahlberg's formula 0.65, 0.70, and 0.55) than those for the overall Bolton. For anterior Bolton, only the measurements obtained by ClinCheck and Dolphin Imaging were accurate (P > .05, no proportion bias), while for overall Bolton, all groups had a significant difference. The Bland-Altman plots demonstrated no consistency for anterior Bolton measurements when 3D Slicer was used and for the overall Bolton.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ClinCheck and Dolphin Imaging showed accuracy to quantify anterior BD. For the overall Bolton measurements, ClinCheck showed a statistical difference from the manual assessment but without relevant clinical significance.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":"51-56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11662356/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Angle orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/022724-156.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of ClinCheck, Dolphin Imaging orthodontic software, and 3D Slicer for the analysis of Bolton discrepancy (BD).

Materials and methods: Fifty-five pairs of early-stage digital models of patients treated with Invisalign were printed to measure the BD by manual method with a digital caliper (gold standard). The discrepancy values calculated by ClinCheck were obtained. In addition, the sample STL files were measured using Dolphin Imaging and 3D Slicer software to obtain BD values. To assess reliability, precision, and accuracy of the methods, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Dahlberg's formula, paired t-tests, and the Bland-Altman method were used, respectively. Repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni post hoc test was used to assess the difference between groups.

Results: The three methods showed reliable measurements (ICC ≥ 0.7), with the values of anterior Bolton slightly higher than overall Bolton. Measurements for the anterior Bolton showed higher precision (Dahlberg's formula 0.65, 0.70, and 0.55) than those for the overall Bolton. For anterior Bolton, only the measurements obtained by ClinCheck and Dolphin Imaging were accurate (P > .05, no proportion bias), while for overall Bolton, all groups had a significant difference. The Bland-Altman plots demonstrated no consistency for anterior Bolton measurements when 3D Slicer was used and for the overall Bolton.

Conclusions: ClinCheck and Dolphin Imaging showed accuracy to quantify anterior BD. For the overall Bolton measurements, ClinCheck showed a statistical difference from the manual assessment but without relevant clinical significance.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于博尔顿差异分析的 ClinCheck、Dolphin Imaging 和 3D Slicer 软件的诊断性能。
目的评估 ClinCheck、Dolphin Imaging 正畸软件和 3D Slicer 在分析波顿差(BD)方面的诊断性能:打印 55 对使用隐适美治疗的患者的早期数字模型,用数字卡尺(金标准)通过手动方法测量 BD。获得由 ClinCheck 计算出的差异值。此外,还使用 Dolphin Imaging 和 3D Slicer 软件测量了样本 STL 文件,以获得 BD 值。为了评估方法的可靠性、精确性和准确性,分别使用了类内相关系数(ICC)、达尔伯格公式、配对 t 检验和布兰德-阿尔特曼法。采用重复测量方差分析和 Bonferroni 后检验来评估组间差异:三种方法的测量结果均可靠(ICC≥0.7),前波顿法的测量值略高于整体波顿法。前Bolton测量的精确度(Dahlberg公式0.65、0.70和0.55)高于整体Bolton测量的精确度。对于前Bolton,只有ClinCheck和Dolphin Imaging的测量结果是准确的(P > .05,无比例偏差),而对于整个Bolton,所有组别都有显著差异。布兰-阿尔特曼图显示,使用 3D Slicer 时,前部波顿测量结果与整体波顿测量结果不一致:结论:ClinCheck 和 Dolphin Imaging 能准确量化前部 BD。结论:ClinCheck 和 Dolphin Imaging 能准确量化前路 BD,ClinCheck 的整体 Bolton 测量结果与人工评估结果有统计学差异,但无相关临床意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Nasal septum deviation after rapid maxillary expansion in the early mixed dentition. Effect of orthodontic treatment on traumatized teeth treated by regenerative endodontic procedure. Orthodontic treatment for preserving periodontally hopeless teeth in a middle-aged patient: a case report. Treatment effects of modified miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expander and rapid palatal expander for molar distalization. Anterior retraction with a canine implant in the way using clear aligner: a case report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1