The purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy of the treatment simulation module of Quick Ceph Studio (QCS) program to the actual treatment results in Class II Division 1 patients.
Twenty-six skeletal Class II patients treated with functional appliances were included. T0 and T1 lateral cephalograms were digitized using QCS. Before applying treatment simulation to the digitized cephalograms, the actual T0-T1 difference was calculated for the SNA, SNB, ANB angles, maxillary incisor inclination, and protrusion and mandibular incisor inclination and protrusion values. Next, using the treatment simulation module, the aforementioned values for the T0 cephalograms were manually entered to match the actual T1 values taking into account the T0-T1 differences. Paired sample t-test were applied to determine the difference between actual and treatment simulation measurements.
No significant differences were found for the anteroposterior location of the landmarks. Upper lip, soft tissue A point, soft tissue pogonion, and soft tissue B point measurements showed statistically significant difference between actual and treatment simulation in the vertical plane.
Quick Ceph program was reliable in terms of reflecting the sagittal changes that would probably occur with treatment and growth. However, vertical positions of the upper lip, soft tissue pogonion, soft tissue A point, and soft tissue B point were statistically different from actual results.