Objective vs subjective analyses of arch form and preformed archwire selection

• A semiobjective method was the best for arch curve and wire selection.
• The objective method improved wire adaptation to the clinical bracket points.

IntroductionMaintaining a patient's original arch form increases treatment stability. In this study, we assessed the agreement between subjective analyses of arch form and archwire selection by orthodontists and an objective method with Cast Analyzer Iranian X software (Khallaghane Mehr, Tehran, Iran).MethodsThirty-six casts with normal occlusion were scanned with a laser. The software generated the best-fit curve using a fourth-degree polynomial equation to the clinical bracket points on the casts; then it selected the best preformed nickel-titanium archwire based on the root mean square calculation either objectively or semiobjectively. Three orthodontists selected the best-fit curve and archwire subjectively using the casts. To assess intraexaminer reliability, the same orthodontists reevaluated 10 casts after 2 weeks. To assess interexaminer reliability, the 3 orthodontists performed the analyses with the software and on the casts. Agreements were evaluated with the intraclass correlation coefficient and Dahlberg's formula.ResultsThe semiobjective method (visual selection of wire by orthodontists using the software) yielded the best results. The differences were clinically negligible between the objective (fully automated) and semiobjective methods (1.30 vs 1.36 mm).ConclusionsThe objective method improved wire adaptation to the clinical bracket points. Agreement among orthodontists regarding wire selection will improve significantly when they are trained to use the software.