LAUSR

Aim With the advent of digital study models, the importance of being able to evaluate space requirements becomes valuable to treatment planning and the justification for any required extraction pattern. This study was undertaken to compare the validity and reliability of the Royal London space analysis (RLSA) undertaken on plaster as compared with digital models. Materials and methods A pilot study (n = 5) was undertaken on plaster and digital models to evaluate the feasibility of digital space planning. This also helped to determine the sample size calculation and as a result, 30 sets of study models with specified inclusion criteria were selected. All five components of the RLSA, namely: crowding; depth of occlusal curve; arch expansion/contraction; incisor antero-posterior advancement and inclination (assessed from the pre-treatment lateral cephalogram) were accounted for in relation to both model types. The plaster models served as the gold standard. Intra-operator measurement error (reliability) was evaluated along with a direct comparison of the measured digital values (validity) with the plaster models. Results The measurement error or coefficient of repeatability was comparable for plaster and digital space analyses and ranged from 0.66 to 0.95mm. No difference was found between the space analysis performed in either the upper or lower dental arch. Hence, the null hypothesis was accepted. The digital model measurements were consistently larger, albeit by a relatively small amount, than the plaster models (0.35mm upper arch and 0.32mm lower arch). Conclusion No difference was detected in the RLSA when performed using either plaster or digital models. Thus, digital space analysis provides a valid and reproducible alternative method in the new era of digital records.