A Comparative Study of Two Smartphone Applications and a Traditional Orthodontic Model Analysis Method

Abstract

Introduction An orthodontic study used to determine whether teeth are positioned appropriately and whether there is an opportunity for orthodontic therapy or tooth extractions by model analysis. While certain manual model studies can be laborious and time-consuming, there are smartphone applications that can simplify the mathematical calculations necessary for orthodontic cast model analysis.  Objective The purpose of this research is to compare the outcomes and processing times of model analysis utilizing two smartphone apps, such as Model Analysis App and iModel Analysis, and the traditional technique.  Materials And Methods This is a comparative analytic study. The samples are made up of thirty dental casts that underwent several model studies, including as the Boltons, Ashley-Howe, Carey’s and Arch Perimeter assessments. A comparison in results and time was carried out for these model analyses using three methods - conventional method, iModel Analysis App and Model Analysis App.  Results The conventional technique gave results for a Bolton's overall ratio analysis of 3.3967±3.44579, iModel Analysis produced results of 3.4333±3.77709, while the Model Analysis app produced results of 4.6200±6.83744. The conventional technique yielded results for Bolton's anterior ratio analysis of 4.9133±5.81969; iModel Analysis produced results of 4.7700±5.57743; and the Model Analysis app produced results of 4.7500±5.59068. The results of arch perimeter discrepancy analysis for conventional method were 4.0000±3.15135, those for iModel Analysis was 4.0000±3.15135, and for Model Analysis app it was 4.0000±3.15135. The results of Carey’s discrepancy analysis for conventional method were 3.8667±2.59620, those for iModel Analysis was 3.8667±2.59620, and for Model Analysis app it was 3.8667±2.59620. The results of Ashley - Howe PMBAW% analysis for conventional method were 44.0200±3.71255, those for iModelAnalysis was 42.1367±5.74531, and for Model Analysis app it was 43.8133±3.71787. The results of Pont’s expansion analysis for conventional method, iModel Analysis and for Model Analysis app showed p value 0.114 (not significant = p>0.05). The results of period required for the analysis by conventional method were 903.3000±30.19951, while those for iModelAnalysis was 399.2000±42.94375, and for Model Analysis app it was 392.0333±35.58233.  Conclusion There was no critical distinction within the results of the examinations done by the different methods. However, there was a noteworthy contrast within the time duration required to carry out the examination by conventional methods and that of iModelAnalysis and Model Analysis App.