The validity, reliability, and time requirement of study model analysis using cone‐beam computed tomography–generated virtual study models

Abstract

To investigate the validity, reliability, and time spent to perform a full orthodontic study model analysis (SMA) on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-generated dental models (Anatomodels) compared with conventional plaster models and a subset of extracted premolars. A retrospective sample of 30 consecutive patient records with fully erupted permanent dentition, good-quality plaster study models, and CBCT scans. Twenty-two extracted premolars were available from eleven of these patients. Five evaluators participated in the inter-rater reliability study and one evaluator for the intrarater reliability and validity studies. Agreement was assessed by ICC and cross-tabulations, while mean differences were investigated using paired-sample t-tests and repeated-measures anova. For all three modalities studied, intrarater reliability was excellent, inter-rater reliability was moderate to excellent, validity was poor to moderate, and performing SMA on Anatomodels took twice as long as on plaster. Study model analysis using CBCT-generated study models was reliable but not always valid and required more time to perform when compared with plaster models.