Assessing accuracy in measurements of orthodontic study model: Digital caliper vs 3 dimensional digital intraoral scanner

Objectives: The interest on intraoral scanners for digital impressions has been growing and new devices are continuously introduced on the market. It is timely to verify whether the several scanners proposed for full-arch digital impressions have been tested under clinical conditions for validity, repeatability, reproducibility, as well as for time efficiency, and patient acceptance.Materials and methods: 20 Pretreatment study models of patients were obtained. The sample size was divided into Group 1 (prime scan),15 subjects under Group 2 (3 shape) and Group 3 (digital caliper).linear measurements were assessed via transferring STL file to NEMOCEPH software. One Way ANOVA and significant results will be analysed for post hoc test Results: is that there was no statistically significant difference between scanners in mean values of intracanine width. (P = 0.6), Inter premolar width (P = 0.75), intra molar width (P = 0.37), Arch length (P = 0.85), Arch perimeter (P = 0.94), mesiodistal width (of 41) (P = 0.34) and cervicoincisal width (of 41) (P = 0.58) respectively.Conclusion: Mean values of intercanine width, Interpremolar width, Intermolar width and arch perimeter were more when scanned using Prime Scanner. In addition, mean values of arch length and Cervicoinsical width (of 41) were more when scanned using Digital Caliper.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2025-09-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17528378
Primary Topic
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Assessing accuracy in measurements of orthodontic study model: Digital caliper vs 3 dimensional digital intraoral scanner

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
article

Assessing accuracy in measurements of orthodontic study model: Digital caliper vs 3 dimensional digital intraoral scanner

article en

Abstract

Objectives: The interest on intraoral scanners for digital impressions has been growing and new devices are continuously introduced on the market. It is timely to verify whether the several scanners proposed for full-arch digital impressions have been tested under clinical conditions for validity, repeatability, reproducibility, as well as for time efficiency, and patient acceptance.Materials and methods: 20 Pretreatment study models of patients were obtained. The sample size was divided into Group 1 (prime scan),15 subjects under Group 2 (3 shape) and Group 3 (digital caliper).linear measurements were assessed via transferring STL file to NEMOCEPH software. One Way ANOVA and significant results will be analysed for post hoc test Results: is that there was no statistically significant difference between scanners in mean values of intracanine width. (P = 0.6), Inter premolar width (P = 0.75), intra molar width (P = 0.37), Arch length (P = 0.85), Arch perimeter (P = 0.94), mesiodistal width (of 41) (P = 0.34) and cervicoincisal width (of 41) (P = 0.58) respectively.Conclusion: Mean values of intercanine width, Interpremolar width, Intermolar width and arch perimeter were more when scanned using Prime Scanner. In addition, mean values of arch length and Cervicoinsical width (of 41) were more when scanned using Digital Caliper.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
K.S. Hegde Hospital (IN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 40%
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.