This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Redmond WR. Digital models: a new diagnostic tool. J Clin Orthod 2001;35:386–7.Search in Google Scholar
Hunter WS, Priest WR. Errors and discrepancies in measurement of tooth size. J Dent Res 1960;39:405–14.Search in Google Scholar
Brook AH, Pitts NB, Yau F, Sandar PK. An image analysis system for the determination of tooth dimensions from study casts: comparison with manual measurements of mesiodistal diameter. J Dent Res 1986;65:428–31.Search in Google Scholar
Champagne M. Reliability of measurements from photocopies of study models. J Clin Orthod 1992;26:648–50.Search in Google Scholar
Mok KH, Cooke MS. Space analysis: a comparison between sonic digitization (DigiGraph Workstation) and the digital caliper. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:653–61.Search in Google Scholar
Musich DR, Ackerman JL. The catenometer: a reliable device for estimating dental arch perimeter. Am J Orthod 1973;63:366–75.Search in Google Scholar
Rudge SJ, Jones PT, Hepenstal S, Bowden DE. The reliability of study model measurement in the evaluation of crowding. Eur J Orthod 1983;5:225–31.Search in Google Scholar
Schirmer UR, Wiltshire WA. Manual and computer-aided space analysis: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:676–80.Search in Google Scholar
Djeu G, Shelton C, Maganzini A. Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:292–8.Search in Google Scholar
Mayhew MJ, Computer-aided bracket placement for indirect bonding. J Clin Orthod 2005;39:653–60.Search in Google Scholar
Little RM. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod 1975;68: 554–63.Search in Google Scholar
Zilberman O, Huggare J, Parikakis K. Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod 2003;73:301–6.Search in Google Scholar
Mayers M, Firestone AR, Rashid R, Vig KW. Comparison of peer assessment rating (PAR) index scores of plaster and computer-based digital models. Am J Orthod 2005;128: 431–4.Search in Google Scholar
Okunami TR, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Evans C, Sadowsky C, Fadavi S. Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:51–6.Search in Google Scholar
Tomassetti J, Taloumis L, Denny J, Fisher J Jr. A comparison of 3 computerized Bolton tooth-size analyses with a commonly used method. Angle Orthod 2001;71:351–7.Search in Google Scholar
Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay O, Cangialosi T. Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:101–5.Search in Google Scholar
Tran AM, Rugh JD, Chacon JA, Hatch JP. Reliability and validity of a computer-based Little irregularity index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:349–51.Search in Google Scholar
Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW. Validity, reliability and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:794–803.Search in Google Scholar
Quimby M, Vig K, Rashid R, Firestone A, Mayers M. The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer based digital models. Angle Orthod 2004;74:298–303.Search in Google Scholar
Whetten JL, Williamson PC, Heo G, Varnhagen C, Major PW. Variations in orthodontic treatment planning decisions of Class II patients between virtual 3-dimensional models and traditional plaster study models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:485–91.Search in Google Scholar
Staley RN, Kerber PE. A revision of the Hixon and Oldfather mixed dentition prediction method. Am J Orthod 1980;78:296–302.Search in Google Scholar
Tanaka MM, Johnston LE. The prediction of size of the unerupted canines and premolars in a contemporary orthodontic population. J Am Dent Assoc 1974;88:798–801.Search in Google Scholar
Little RM, Riedel RA, Årtun J. An evaluation of changes in mandibular anterior alignment from 10–20 years postretention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;93:423–8.Search in Google Scholar
Carey CW. Treatment planning and the technical program in the four fundamental treatment forms. Am J Orthod 1958; 44:887–98.Search in Google Scholar
Huckaba GW. Arch size analysis and tooth size prediction. Dent Clin North Am 1964;11:431–40.Search in Google Scholar
Cons NC, Jenny J, Kohout FJ. DAI: The Dental Aesthetic Index. Iowa City: College of Dentistry, University of Iowa 1986.Search in Google Scholar
Lunn H, Richmond S, Mitropoulos C. The use of the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN) as a public health tool: a pilot study. Community Dent Health 1993;10: 111–21.Search in Google Scholar
Vego L. A longitudinal study of mandibular arch perimeter. Angle Orthod 1962;32:187–92.Search in Google Scholar
Fisk RO. Normal mandibular arch changes between the ages of 9 and 16. J Can Dent Assoc 1966;32:652–8.Search in Google Scholar
Little RM, Wallen T, Riedel R. Stability and relapse of mandibular anterior alignment: first premolar extraction cases treated by traditional edgewise orthodontics. Am J Orthod 1981;80:349–65.Search in Google Scholar
Little RM. Stability and relapse of dental arch alignment. Br J Orthod 1990;17:235–41.Search in Google Scholar
