Affiliation:
1. Department of Orthodontics, King’s College London Dental Institute , London , United Kingdom
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
To establish the sensitivity and specificity of the Korkhaus and Royal London Space Planning Analyses.
Methods
The sample consisted of 30 cases with two sets of study models and lateral cephalometric radiographs taken at least three years apart. These were then further subdivided into Class I (N = 10), Class II division 1 (N = 10) and Class II division 2 cases (N = 10). The Royal London Space Planning Analysis and the Korkhaus Analysis were applied on these cases at both times.
Results
Study model analysis: The Royal London Planning Analysis revealed that in Class I malocclusions, upper and lower arch crowding and spacing changed significantly with time. The total space required and tooth size reduction for the lower arch had also changed significantly. Additionally, in the Class II division 1 malocclusions, lower arch crowding and spacing, total space required and the need for tooth size reduction had significantly increased, while, in Class II division 2 malocclusions, a statistically significant increase was observed in the upper and lower arch crowding and spacing.
The Korkhaus Analysis showed that in Class I malocclusions a significant decrease was observed in the lower arch length and the lower anterior arch width. The upper posterior (inter-molar) arch width had significantly increased. In Class II division 1 malocclusions the lower right posterior space available had decreased significantly. The upper posterior arch width and the lower posterior arch width also significantly increased. In Class II division 2 malocclusions, a statistically significant decrease was observed in the lower anterior arch length. There were no significant changes in all angular and the two linear measurements for all classes.
Conclusions
The Royal London Space Planning Analysis and the Korkhause Analysis are clinically sensitive analyses. The Royal London Space Planning Analysis lacks specificity to be a robust model for treatment planning; modification may be required before this technique is accepted.
Reference25 articles.
1. Proffit William R. Contemporary Orthodontics. St. Louis; Mosby, 2007;195-218.
2. Mockers O, Aubry M, Mafart B. Dental crowding in a prehistoric population. Eur J Orthod 2004;26:151-6.
3. Shellhart WC, Lange DW, Kluemper GT, Hicks EP, Kaplan AL. Reliability of Bolton tooth-size analysis when applied to crowded dentitions. Angle Orthod 1995;65:327-34.
4. Kirschen RH, O’Higgins EA, Lee RT. The Royal London Space Planning: an integration of space analysis and treatment planning: Part I: Assessing the space required to meet treatment objectives. Am J Orthod Dent Orthop 2000a;118: 448-55.
5. Kirschen RH, O’Higgins EA, Lee RT. The Royal London Space Planning: an integration of space analysis and treatment planning: Part II: The effect of other treatment procedures on space. Am J Orthod Dent Orthop 2000b;118: 456-61.