J. Orthod.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Battagel, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Crow, V. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Battagel, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Crow, V. P.

British Journal of Orthodontics, Vol 23, 229-236, Copyright © 1996 by British Orthodontic Society


ARTICLES

The assessment of crowding without the need to record arch perimeter. Part II: Crowded and irregular arches

JM Battagel, AS Johal and VP Crow
Department of Orthodontics, London Hospital Medical College Dental School, UK.

A mathematically determined technique which seemed to be valid for the calculation of crowding and spacing in arches with acceptable alignment, was tested on a series of arches with varying degrees of crowding and irregularity. Upper and lower study casts of 30 individuals with sufficient malalignment and crowding to warrant orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances were examined. Models were measured by three operators, using a reflex microscope interfaced to an IBM compatible PC and a customized calculation program. The degree of crowding was compared with a "clinical' assessment of each arch, in which the irregularity was measured directly using a steel ruler. Both the computer calculated and clinical values varied between observers, but the agreement between observers was better using the reflex microscope. Correlation coefficients ranged from 0.92 to 0.96 for the reflex microscope, and between 0.86 and 0.91 for the clinical assessment. Inter-observer agreement for the three operators was high: 0.93 for the reflex microscope and 0.87 where a ruler was used. This suggests that the computer program used to calculate the crowding was valid for the crowded arches under consideration.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Eur J OrthodHome page
E. Bernabe and C. Flores-Mir
Estimating arch length discrepancy through Little's Irregularity Index for epidemiological use
Eur J Orthod, June 1, 2006; 28(3): 269 - 273.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 British Orthodontic Society.