PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 8, 2026Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie0 citationsOpen Access

Semi-automated evaluation of the American Board of Orthodontics electronic cast-radiograph evaluation for assessing orthodontic treatment outcome

GGGina Marie GeorgiMKMelika KhanlooCNCita Nottmeier

Key Points

  • The aim is to assess the reliability and agreement of semi-automated electronic evaluations versus manual measurements in orthodontics.
  • Used ™ Lab for scoring plaster models semi-automatically.
  • Conducted manual scoring with ABO measurement gauges.
  • Assessed interobserver reliability with evaluations by a second observer on 20 models.
  • Interobserver reliability for digital measurements was excellent (ICC 0.94-1.00).
  • Digital evaluations showed higher alignment scores on average (+0.93 compared to manual measurements).
  • The correlation between digital and manual evaluations was very high (0.95 to 0.99).

Abstract

AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and agreement of a semi-automated evaluation of the electronic cast-radiograph evaluation (E-CRE) model score, as developed by the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO), compared to manual measurements. METHODS: ™ Lab (version 3.5, Image Instruments GmbH, Chemnitz, Germany), while the plaster models were scored manually using the ABO measurement gauge. In addition, 20 models were scored manually and digitally by a second observer to assess interobserver reliability. RESULTS: The interobserver reliability was excellent for digital measurements (intraclass correlation coefficient ICC 0.94-1.00) and higher compared to those for manual measurements (ICC 0.90-0.97). The reliability between digital and manual measurements was very high, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.95 to 0.99. However, the digital evaluation produced slightly higher scores for alignment than the manual measurement (mean difference: +0.93). CONCLUSION: ™ is highly reliable and involves less interpersonal variance than manual grading. However, scores measured digitally were on average 0.79 point higher than those measured manually (scores below 30 are considered as acceptable treatment outcome).

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Georgi et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fd7fb8bfa21ec5bbf08448https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-026-00660-y
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper