A comparison of 3 computerized Bolton tooth-size analyses with a commonly used method

Abstract

Four methods of conducting overall and anterior Bolton tooth-size analyses were compared using 22 (11 pretreatment and 11 posttreatment) sets of models. No more than 3 mm of crowding existed in any of the models, and all were in good condition. An analysis employing vernier calipers was completed 3 times to set a standard. Pearson correlation coefficients revealed a high degree of intra-operator reliability with mean R values of 0.930 and 0.843 for the overall and anterior discrepancies, respectively. The mean Vernier caliper results were compared with each of the following computerized methods: QuickCeph, Hamilton Arch Tooth System (HATS), and OrthoCad. No statistically significant error was present for any of the methods using repeated-measures analysis of variance testing and paired t-tests (p < .05). Clinically significant differences (>1.5 mm) were present for each method. Absolute differences were calculated, and linear regression and R values were determined. The HATS analysis had the highest degree of correlation (R = 0.885 for overall and 0.825 for anterior), followed by OrthoCad (R = 0.715, 0.574), and QuickCeph (R = 0.432, 0.439). Each method also was compared based on the time required to complete each analysis. The QuickCeph was the fastest (1.85 minutes) followed by HATS (3.40 minutes), OrthoCad (5.37 minutes), and Vernier caliper (8.06 min).