The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Computerized occlusal analysis: correlation with occlusal indexes to assess the outcome of orthodontic treatment or the severity of malocculusion

  • Lee, Sang-Min (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Lee, Jin-Woo (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University)
  • Received : 2015.12.21
  • Accepted : 2016.01.04
  • Published : 2016.01.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The aims of our study were to verify the validity of the T-Scan III system (Tekscan) as an objective occlusal evaluation tool, and to assess the differences between two occlusal indexes - the peer assessment rating (PAR) index and the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (OGS) - by comparing the scores derived from the T-Scan III system with the two occlusal indexes and analyzing the correlations between them. Methods: The final study sample included 48 adult volunteers (39 men and 9 women, mean age $24.14{\pm}3.16years$), after excluding 29 volunteers whose occlusion could not be evaluated by the T-Scan III system due to severe skeletal or occlusal problems. PAR index and OGS scores were assessed using dental study models, and measurements of centric occlusion, protrusive movement, and lateral excursion movement were obtained via the T-Scan III system. The results were analyzed to determine correlations. Results: Occlusal analysis by the T-Scan III system was clinically reliable (p < 0.05), and the PAR index and OGS scores were significantly correlated with several measurements obtained with the T-Scan III system (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The T-Scan III system is a quantitative and reliable method for occlusal evaluation, and represents a potential substitute for occlusal indexes. Compared to the PAR index, the OGS scores of more variables were significantly correlated with the T-Scan measurements.

Keywords

References

  1. Eismann D. Reliable assessment of morphological changes resulting from orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 1980;2:19-25. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/2.1.19
  2. Berg R. Post-retention analysis of treatment problems and failures in 264 consecutively treated cases. Eur J Orthod 1979;1:55-68. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/1.1.55
  3. Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG, Damone J, James RD, Cangialosi TJ, et al. Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:589-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70179-9
  4. Richmond S, Shaw WC, O'Brien KD, Buchanan IB, Jones R, Stephens CD, et al. The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:125-39. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/14.2.125
  5. Hamdan AM, Rock WP. An appraisal of the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index and a suggested new weighting system. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:181-92. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/21.2.181
  6. Deguchi T, Honjo T, Fukunaga T, Miyawaki S, Roberts WE, Takano-Yamamoto T. Clinical assessment of orthodontic outcomes with the peer assessment rating, discrepancy index, objective grading system, and comprehensive clinical assessment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:434-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.03.030
  7. Throckmorton GS, Rasmussen J, Caloss R. Calibration of T-Scan sensors for recording bite forces in denture patients. J Oral Rehabil 2009;36:636-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01978.x
  8. Maness WL, Benjamin M, Podoloff R, Bobick A, Golden RF. Computerized occlusal analysis: a new technology. Quintessence Int 1987;18:287-92.
  9. Koos B, Godt A, Schille C, Goz G. Precision of an instrumentation-based method of analyzing occlusion and its resulting distribution of forces in the dental arch. J Orofac Orthop 2010;71:403-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-010-1023-7
  10. Kerstein RB, Wright NR. Electromyographic and computer analyses of patients suffering from chronic myofascial pain-dysfunction syndrome: before and after treatment with immediate complete anterior guidance development. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:677-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(91)90453-4
  11. Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. London: G Allen & Unwin Ltd; 1940. p. 1-140.
  12. Wang YL, Cheng J, Chen YM, Yip KH, Smales RJ, Yin XM. Patterns and forces of occlusal contacts during lateral excursions recorded by the T-Scan II system in young Chinese adults with normal occlusions. J Oral Rehabil 2011;38:571-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02194.x
  13. Garrido Garcia VC, Garcia Cartagena A, Gonzalez Sequeros O. Evaluation of occlusal contacts in maximum intercuspation using the T-Scan system. J Oral Rehabil 1997;24:899-903. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1997.00586.x
  14. Mizui M, Nabeshima F, Tosa J, Tanaka M, Kawazoe T. Quantitative analysis of occlusal balance in intercuspal position using the T-Scan system. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7:62-71.
  15. Richmond S, Shaw WC, O'Brien KD, Buchanan IB, Jones R, Stephens CD, et al. The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:125-39. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/14.2.125
  16. Fox NA. The first 100 cases: a personal audit of orthodontic treatment assessed by the PAR (peer assessment rating) index. Br Dent J 1993;174:290-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4808157
  17. McGorray SP, Wheeler TT, Keeling SD, Yurkiewicz L, Taylor MG, King GJ. Evaluation of orthodontists' perception of treatment need and the peer assessment rating (PAR) index. Angle Orthod 1999;69:325-33.
  18. Onyeaso CO, Begole EA. Relationship between index of complexity, outcome and need, dental aesthetic index, peer assessment rating index, and American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:248-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.045
  19. Murakami K, Deguchi T, Hashimoto T, Imai M, Miyawaki S, Takano-Yamamoto T. Need for training sessions for orthodontists in the use of the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:427.e1-6.

Cited by

  1. Changes in occlusal function after extraction of premolars: 2-year follow-up vol.87, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.2319/112116-836.1
  2. Comparison between conventional and computerised methods in the assessment of an occlusal scheme vol.47, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12905
  3. Occlusion time, occlusal balance and lateral occlusal scheme in subjects with various dental and skeletal characteristics: A prospective clinical study vol.47, pp.12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.13095
  4. Computerized Assessment of Occlusion and Muscle Activity during Use of a Multilayer Clear Retainer: A Preliminary Study vol.21, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/s21020541
  5. Restoration of the dentition in a patient with a history of bruxism and amelogenesis imperfecta: A clinical report vol.9, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1002/ccr3.3667
  6. Digital occlusal analysis of pre and post single posterior implant restoration delivery: A pilot study vol.16, pp.7, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252191