Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need scored on plaster and digital models.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare standard plaster models with their digital counterparts for the applicability of the Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need (ICON). Generated study models of 30 randomly selected patients: 30 pre- (T(0)) and 30 post- (T(1)) treatment. Two examiners, calibrated in the ICON, scored the digital and plaster models. The overall ICON scores were evaluated for reliability and reproducibility using kappa statistics and reliability coefficients. The values for reliability of the total and weighted ICON scores were generally high for the T(0) sample (range 0.83-0.95) but less high for the T(1) sample (range 0.55-0.85). Differences in total ICON score between plaster and digital models resulted in mostly statistically insignificant values (P values ranging from 0.07 to 0.19), except for observer 1 in the T(1) sample. No statistically different values were found for the total ICON score on either plaster or digital models. ICON scores performed on computer-based models appear to be as accurate and reliable as ICON scores on plaster models.