| As the concept of craniofacial growth prediction began to grow in orthodontics, so did its criticisms and the skepticism of its validity. It has been established that good facial growth and a good orthodontic outcome are correlated, so the ability to assess and predict facial growth cephalometrically is important to orthodontists, to better plan treatment and achieve stable and esthetic outcomes. Several methods of prediction using lateral cephalograms have been attempted and established, and many have been made available to clinicians. Currently, commercially available in-office programs such as Dolphin Imaging(TM) 11.0 and RMODSRTM software, JOE CEPHRTM have embedded in them growth prediction algorithms. As methods and technology advance, it is important that they be tested. This study compares the predictive ability of these currently available programs to provide a measuring stick for growth prediction.;This study introduces a method for evaluating the growth prediction capabilities of such software. A retrospective study using the lateral cephalograms of untreated subjects, obtained from the Craniofacial Growth Legacy Collection of the American Association of Orthodontists Foundation (AAOF), was completed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of the Ricketts growth prediction algorithm in Dolphin Imaging(TM) 11.0, the Bolton growth prediction algorithm in Dolphin Imaging(TM) 11.0 and the Ricketts growth prediction algorithm in JOE CEPHRTM when compared to actual, observed growth. Groups were subdivided by growth prediction algorithm, gender, developmental age and length of prediction. T-tests were used for evaluation of accuracy of each algorithm and comparison of algorithms between each other.;The three growth prediction algorithms were shown to be accurate, with respect to a clinical reference mean of 1.5 mm. The Ricketts growth prediction algorithm in Dolphin Imaging(TM) 11.0 was found to be less accurate than the other tested algorithms. |
