A comparison between orthodontic model analysis using conventional methods and iModelAnalysis

Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi)

View Publication Info
 
 
Field Value
 
Title A comparison between orthodontic model analysis using conventional methods and iModelAnalysis
 
Creator Indirayana, Vita Previa
Gayatri, Gita
Zenab, N. R. Yuliawati
 
Subject conventional; iModelAnalysis; result of analysis; time period of analysis
 
Description Background: Model analysis constitutes an essential aspect of orthodontic diagnostic practice. Pavan has developed an application to simplify the mathematical calculations employed in orthodontic model analysis. Purpose: This study was conducted to obtain the differences in results and time periods of model analysis using conventional means and iModelAnalysis. Methods: The research represented a comparative analytic study. The populations comprised dental casts dating from 2014 in the Orthodontics Laboratory of Padjadjaran University. The samples comprised 31 dental casts which were subjected to a total sampling method consisting of two treatments; a conventional method calculation and one using iModelAnalysis. A normality test was conducted and processed using a paired t-test with α=0.05. Results: The means of arch length discrepancies were 1.64±2.63 mm and 1.37±3.07 mm for the conventional methods and 1.65±2.43mm and 1.42±3.04mm for iModelAnalysis. The results of a Bolton analysis for conventional methods were 78.05±2.69% and 91.93±1.29%, while those for iModelAnalysis were 77.91±2.70% and 91.96±2.13%. A Howes analysis of conventional methods produced a result of 45.56±2.83%, while for an iModelAnalysis one of 45.56±2.85%. Pont analysis for conventional methods was 39.35±0.04 mm and 49.17±2.55 mm, while for iModelAnalysis it was 39.35±0.07 mm and 49.19±2.57mm. The mean of the duration of analysis using conventional methods was 1703.81±56.46 seconds, while for iModelAnalysis it was 990.06±34.87 seconds. A normality test confirmed that the data was normally distributed (p>0.05). The results of a paired sample t-test with p>0.05 showed that there was no significant difference between the results of each analysis, while there was significant difference in the time period of analysis. Conclusion: There was no difference in the analysis results. However, there was difference in the time period of analysis between conventional methods and that of iModelAnalysis.
 
Publisher Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga https://fkg.unair.ac.id/en
 
Contributor
 
Date 2018-12-31
 
Type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Peer-reviewed Article
 
Format application/pdf
 
Identifier http://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/article/view/8172
10.20473/j.djmkg.v51.i4.p173-178
 
Source Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi); Vol 51, No 4 (2018): December 2018; 173-178
2442-9740
1978-3728
 
Language eng
 
Relation http://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/article/view/8172/7164
 
Rights Copyright (c) 2018 Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
 

Contact Us

The PKP Index is an initiative of the Public Knowledge Project.

For PKP Publishing Services please use the PKP|PS contact form.

For support with PKP software we encourage users to consult our wiki for documentation and search our support forums.

For any other correspondence feel free to contact us using the PKP contact form.

Find Us

Twitter

Copyright © 2015-2018 Simon Fraser University Library