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

Four methods of conducting overall and anterior Bolton tooth-size analyses were compared using 22 (11 pretreatment and 11 posttreatment) sets of model s. 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 d egree of intra-operator reliability with mean R values of 0.930 and 0.843 f or the overall and anterior discrepancies, respectively. The mean Vernier c aliper results were compared with each of the following computerized method s: QuickCeph, Hamilton Arch Tooth System (HATS), and OrthoCad. No statistic ally significant error was present for any of the methods using repeated-me asures analysis of variance testing and paired t-tests (p < .05). Clinicall y significant differences (>1.5 mm) were present for each method. Absolute differences were calculated, and linear regression and R values were determ ined. The HATS analysis had the highest degree of correlation (R = 0.885 fo r 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 t he 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).