![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Objective: To assess whether articulating casts in centric relation (CR) compared with intercuspal position (ICP) makes a difference to treatment planning.
Design: Reliability analysis.
Subjects: Ten orthodontists.
Methods: Twenty case vignettes were examined on three occasions: twice with the casts in ICP and once in CR. A series of dichotomous decisions were made relating to the treatment need and treatment mechanics.
Main outcome measures: The changes in treatment decisions were examined. Intra-examiner agreement between the two hand-held cast assessments (H1 v. H2) and between the first set of hand-held casts compared with the articulated casts (H1 v. A1) were evaluated using the kappa statistic. The differences between the kappa statistics for H1 v. H2 and H1 v. A1 were then tested with the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank sum test.
Results: The only statistically significant change in the kappa score between H1 v. H2 and H1 v. A1 was for the extraction decision (P= 0.007). No other statistically significant differences were found for the other treatment decisions, although trends were identified for orthognathic surgery and anchorage support decisions.
Conclusion: Routine articulation of study models for all orthodontic patients is not supported by the results of this study. Articulation of the study models did not affect the treatment planning decisions in a meaningful manner. Further work with selected samples is required to determine if articulation is helpful for specific malocclusions.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Fiona Dyer, Nicola Parkin, Susan Caldwell, Simon Littlewood, Alan Gowans, Fiona McKeown, Serena Derwent, Steven Ward, Justin Holmgren, Wei Yap, and David Patrick for their help in this study.