Variations between Visually Estimated and Actual Convergence Angles of Tooth Preparations

T. Marghalani
{"title":"Variations between Visually Estimated and Actual Convergence Angles of Tooth Preparations","authors":"T. Marghalani","doi":"10.4172/2376-032X.1000176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the actual CA values of tooth preparations to those visually estimated by experienced prosthodontists, and to compare performance between prosthodontists. \nMaterials and methods: Three prosthodontists visually estimated the mesiodistal and buccolingual convergence angles (MDCA and BLCA, respectively) of 65 randomly selected premolar preparations made by dental students on typodonts. Preparations were scanned in three dimensions and digitized. Actual MDCA and BLCA values were measured by three-dimensional imaging software. Data were analyzed by Friedman test (α=.05) and pairwise multiple comparisons with the Bonferroni adjustment (α=.0042). \nResults: The mean actual MDCA was 10.66 ± 3.96 degrees, compared to visual estimates of 13.86 ± 12.01, 21.94 ± 6.11, and 12.49 ± 8.38 degrees. The mean actual BLCA was 11.31 ± 4.80 degrees, compared to visual estimates of 13.32 ± 10.93, 23.52 ± 6.18, and 8.83 ± 5.75 degrees. The Friedman test resulted in χ2(3) = 68.54 (P<. 05) for MDCA and χ2(3) = 100.07 (P<.05) for BLCA. Multiple comparisons indicated that two prosthodontists provided CA estimates that were similar to each other (MDCA, P=1.0; BLCA, P=.042) and to the actual CA values (MDCA, P=.804 and P=.457; BLCA, P=1.0 and P=.006), whereas one prosthodontists provided higher CA estimates compared to the actual CA values and the other prosthodontists (P<.0042). \nConclusions: One out of three of prosthodontists gave high CA estimates of tooth preparations compared to the actual CA and other prosthodontists’ estimates.","PeriodicalId":110010,"journal":{"name":"JBR Journal of Interdisciplinary Medicine and Dental Science","volume":"11 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBR Journal of Interdisciplinary Medicine and Dental Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2376-032X.1000176","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the actual CA values of tooth preparations to those visually estimated by experienced prosthodontists, and to compare performance between prosthodontists. Materials and methods: Three prosthodontists visually estimated the mesiodistal and buccolingual convergence angles (MDCA and BLCA, respectively) of 65 randomly selected premolar preparations made by dental students on typodonts. Preparations were scanned in three dimensions and digitized. Actual MDCA and BLCA values were measured by three-dimensional imaging software. Data were analyzed by Friedman test (α=.05) and pairwise multiple comparisons with the Bonferroni adjustment (α=.0042). Results: The mean actual MDCA was 10.66 ± 3.96 degrees, compared to visual estimates of 13.86 ± 12.01, 21.94 ± 6.11, and 12.49 ± 8.38 degrees. The mean actual BLCA was 11.31 ± 4.80 degrees, compared to visual estimates of 13.32 ± 10.93, 23.52 ± 6.18, and 8.83 ± 5.75 degrees. The Friedman test resulted in χ2(3) = 68.54 (P<. 05) for MDCA and χ2(3) = 100.07 (P<.05) for BLCA. Multiple comparisons indicated that two prosthodontists provided CA estimates that were similar to each other (MDCA, P=1.0; BLCA, P=.042) and to the actual CA values (MDCA, P=.804 and P=.457; BLCA, P=1.0 and P=.006), whereas one prosthodontists provided higher CA estimates compared to the actual CA values and the other prosthodontists (P<.0042). Conclusions: One out of three of prosthodontists gave high CA estimates of tooth preparations compared to the actual CA and other prosthodontists’ estimates.
牙齿预备的视觉估计和实际收敛角之间的差异
目的:本研究的目的是比较牙齿准备的实际CA值与经验丰富的修复专家视觉估计的CA值,并比较修复专家之间的表现。材料与方法:三名义齿医师对随机选择的牙科学生在印型牙上制作的65个前磨牙制剂进行中远端和颊舌会聚角(MDCA和BLCA)目测。对制剂进行三维扫描并数字化。三维成像软件测量实际MDCA和BLCA值。采用Friedman检验(α= 0.05)和Bonferroni调整(α= 0.0042)进行两两多元比较。结果:实际MDCA平均值为10.66±3.96度,而视觉估计值为13.86±12.01度,21.94±6.11度和12.49±8.38度。平均实际BLCA为11.31±4.80度,而视觉估计为13.32±10.93度,23.52±6.18度和8.83±5.75度。经Friedman检验,χ2(3) = 68.54 (P<。MDCA为0.05),BLCA为χ2(3) = 100.07 (P< 0.05)。多重比较表明,两位义齿医师提供的CA估计值彼此相似(MDCA, P=1.0;BLCA, P=.042)和实际CA值(MDCA, P=。804, P=.457;BLCA, P=1.0和P= 0.006),而一名修复牙医提供的CA估计值高于其他修复牙医的实际CA值(P< 0.0042)。结论:三分之一的义齿医生对牙齿准备的CA估计高于实际CA和其他义齿医生的估计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信