Authors :
Dr. Madhura Pradip Wagh; Dr. Sunilkumar Pulluri; Dr. Akash Lavate; Dr. Sneha Hoshing; Dr. Sneha Shinde; Dr. Phalguni Warate
Volume/Issue :
Volume 9 - 2024, Issue 3 - March
Google Scholar :
https://tinyurl.com/4nk9exbv
Scribd :
https://tinyurl.com/mtx6fyab
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24MAR1645
Abstract :
Introduction
An orthodontic study used to determine whether
teeth are positioned appropriately and whether there is an
opportunity for orthodontic therapy or tooth extractions
by model analysis. While certain manual model studies
can be laborious and time-consuming, there are
smartphone applications that can simplify the
mathematical calculations necessary for orthodontic cast
model analysis.
Objective
The purpose of this research is to compare the
outcomes and processing times of model analysis utilizing
two smartphone apps, such as Model Analysis App and
iModel Analysis, and the traditional technique.
Materials And Methods
This is a comparative analytic study. The samples
are made up of thirty dental casts that underwent several
model studies, including as the Boltons, Ashley-Howe,
Carey’s and Arch Perimeter assessments. A comparison
in results and time was carried out for these model
analyses using three methods - conventional method,
iModel Analysis App and Model Analysis App.
Results
The conventional technique gave results for a
Bolton's overall ratio analysis of 3.3967±3.44579, iModel
Analysis produced results of 3.4333±3.77709, while the
Model Analysis app produced results of 4.6200±6.83744.
The conventional technique yielded results for Bolton's
anterior ratio analysis of 4.9133±5.81969; iModel
Analysis produced results of 4.7700±5.57743; and the
Model Analysis app produced results of 4.7500±5.59068.
The results of arch perimeter discrepancy analysis for
conventional method were 4.0000±3.15135, those for
iModel Analysis was 4.0000±3.15135, and for Model
Analysis app it was 4.0000±3.15135. The results of
Carey’s discrepancy analysis for conventional method
were 3.8667±2.59620, those for iModel Analysis was
3.8667±2.59620, and for Model Analysis app it was
3.8667±2.59620. The results of Ashley - Howe PMBAW%
analysis for conventional method were 44.0200±3.71255,
those for iModelAnalysis was 42.1367±5.74531, and for
Model Analysis app it was 43.8133±3.71787. The results
of Pont’s expansion analysis for conventional method,
iModel Analysis and for Model Analysis app showed p
value 0.114 (not significant = p>0.05). The results of
period required for the analysis by conventional method
were 903.3000±30.19951, while those for iModelAnalysis
was 399.2000±42.94375, and for Model Analysis app it
was 392.0333±35.58233.
Conclusion
There was no critical distinction within the results of
the examinations done by the different methods.
However, there was a noteworthy contrast within the time
duration required to carry out the examination by
conventional methods and that of iModelAnalysis and
Model Analysis App.
Keywords :
Conventional; imodel Analysis; Model Analysis App.; Model Analysis; Time of Analysis.
Introduction
An orthodontic study used to determine whether
teeth are positioned appropriately and whether there is an
opportunity for orthodontic therapy or tooth extractions
by model analysis. While certain manual model studies
can be laborious and time-consuming, there are
smartphone applications that can simplify the
mathematical calculations necessary for orthodontic cast
model analysis.
Objective
The purpose of this research is to compare the
outcomes and processing times of model analysis utilizing
two smartphone apps, such as Model Analysis App and
iModel Analysis, and the traditional technique.
Materials And Methods
This is a comparative analytic study. The samples
are made up of thirty dental casts that underwent several
model studies, including as the Boltons, Ashley-Howe,
Carey’s and Arch Perimeter assessments. A comparison
in results and time was carried out for these model
analyses using three methods - conventional method,
iModel Analysis App and Model Analysis App.
Results
The conventional technique gave results for a
Bolton's overall ratio analysis of 3.3967±3.44579, iModel
Analysis produced results of 3.4333±3.77709, while the
Model Analysis app produced results of 4.6200±6.83744.
The conventional technique yielded results for Bolton's
anterior ratio analysis of 4.9133±5.81969; iModel
Analysis produced results of 4.7700±5.57743; and the
Model Analysis app produced results of 4.7500±5.59068.
The results of arch perimeter discrepancy analysis for
conventional method were 4.0000±3.15135, those for
iModel Analysis was 4.0000±3.15135, and for Model
Analysis app it was 4.0000±3.15135. The results of
Carey’s discrepancy analysis for conventional method
were 3.8667±2.59620, those for iModel Analysis was
3.8667±2.59620, and for Model Analysis app it was
3.8667±2.59620. The results of Ashley - Howe PMBAW%
analysis for conventional method were 44.0200±3.71255,
those for iModelAnalysis was 42.1367±5.74531, and for
Model Analysis app it was 43.8133±3.71787. The results
of Pont’s expansion analysis for conventional method,
iModel Analysis and for Model Analysis app showed p
value 0.114 (not significant = p>0.05). The results of
period required for the analysis by conventional method
were 903.3000±30.19951, while those for iModelAnalysis
was 399.2000±42.94375, and for Model Analysis app it
was 392.0333±35.58233.
Conclusion
There was no critical distinction within the results of
the examinations done by the different methods.
However, there was a noteworthy contrast within the time
duration required to carry out the examination by
conventional methods and that of iModelAnalysis and
Model Analysis App.
Keywords :
Conventional; imodel Analysis; Model Analysis App.; Model Analysis; Time of Analysis.
