Abstract
Aim: The aim of the study was to compare digital and plaster orthodontic models with the emphasis on the reliability of measurements performed in digital and physical form. Another aim was to evaluate the way of how digital and plaster models are made and to assess practical use of intraoral 3D scanner and laboratory 3D scanner.
Material: The sample included 42 patients; there were made 4 groups of models for each patient: three digital (intraoral scan, impression scan, plaster model scan) and one physical. Method: In all models the following eight parameters were measured: intercanine width, intermolar width, mesiodistal width, and vertical length of crown of upper right central incisor, length of the dental arch, perimeter, overjet and overbite.
All parameters with the exception of overbite and overjet were measured in the model of the upper dental arch. Overbite and overjet were measured in the model in maximum intercuspation.
In 14 patients the measurements of all parameters in all models were repeated. We inquired differences in measurements done in the four groups of models; the differences were compared with the help of the error of measurement due to human failure.
Conclusion: Measurements in digital and plaster models show a good congruence. The measurements results are comparable.
In most cases of orthodontic diagnostics and the following treatment, planning digital models are equal to plaster ones.