World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Evaluation of Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners vs Conventional Method in Establishing Dental Measurements in Mixed Dentition

Naman Pahuja, Divya Doneria, Shivani Mathur

Keywords : Digital dentistry, Digital pediatric dentistry, Intraoral scanner

Citation Information : Pahuja N, Doneria D, Mathur S. Comparative Evaluation of Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners vs Conventional Method in Establishing Dental Measurements in Mixed Dentition. World J Dent 2023; 14 (5):419-424.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2231

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 02-08-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Introduction: With the ongoing development of digital procedures, intraoral scanning devices, and associated workflows are conquering dental practice. The intraoral scan and its digital models (DM) are being considered as a replacement for conventional impressions in pedodontics because of several potential advantages in hygienic handling, the comfort of treatment, transferring of data, analyzing and storing diagnostic models, and manufacturing orthodontic appliances. Material and methods: A total of 22 children of age 5–11 years were divided into two groups; stone model (SM) (group I; n = 22) and DM (group II; n = 22). Two trained examiners recorded the following parameters of intercanine width, intermolar width, arch perimeter, and arch length on both stone and DMs. Results: The present study was carried out to check the accuracy of intraoral scanners in establishing dental measurements in mixed dentition. DMs had a significantly higher intermolar width, while the differences between other parameters were found to be nonsignificant (p < 0.05). Also, SMs showed a lower arch perimeter value (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Intraoral scanners constitute a paradigm change in the evolution of digital dentistry as an effective tool for orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Additionally, intraoral scans have clinically acceptable accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility of the tooth measurements and can be a viable alternative to SMs and calipers for dental arch analysis.

  1. Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R, et al. A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod 2008;35(3):191–201. DOI: 10.1179/146531207225022626
  2. Burhardt L, Livas C, Kerdijk W, et al. Treatment comfort, time perception, and preference for conventional and digital impression techniques: a comparative study in young patients. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2016;150(2):261-267. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.12.027
  3. Khan MK. Modern digital pediatric dentistry with the advent of intraoral sensors, computer–aided design/computer–aided manufacturing, and three–dimensional printing technologies: a comprehensive review. J Dent Res Rev 2022;9(3):195–201. DOI: 10.4103/jdrr.jdrr_83_22
  4. Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK, et al. Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial. J Prosthodont 2016;25(4): 282–287. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12410
  5. Farrier S, Pretty IA, Lynch CD, et al. Gagging during impression making: techniques for reduction. Dent Update 2011;38(3):171–172, 174–176. DOI: 10.12968/denu.2011.38.3.171
  6. Akbay Oba A, Dülgergil ÇT, Sönmez IŞ. Prevalence of dental anxiety in 7-to 11-year-old children and its relationship to dental caries. Med Princ Pract 2009;18(6):453-457. DOI: 10.1159/000235894
  7. Moyers RE. 4th ed., Chicago: Year book medical publishers; 1998. Handbook of orthodontics.
  8. Kau CH, Olim S, Nguyen JT. The future of orthodontic diagnostic records. Semin Orthod 2011;17(1):39–45. DOI:
  9. Francisco I, Ribeiro MP, Marques F, et al. Application of three-dimensional digital technology in orthodontics: the state of the art. Biomimetics (Basel) 2022;7(1):23. DOI: 10.3390/biomimetics7010023
  10. Murugesan A, Sivakumar A. Comparison of accuracy of mesiodistal tooth measurements made in conventional study models and digital models obtained from intraoral scan and desktop scan of study models. J Orthod 2020;47(2):149–155. DOI: 10.1177/1465312520910755
  11. Mangano A, Beretta M, Luongo G, et al. Conventional vs digital impressions: acceptability, treatment comfort and stress among young orthodontic patients. Open Dent J 2018;12:118–124. DOI: 10.2174/1874210601812010118
  12. Naidu D, Freer TJ. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intra oral scanner: a comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144(2):304–310. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.011
  13. Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Tutein Nolthenius HE, et al. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143(1):140–147. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.06.018
  14. Schirmer UR, Wiltshire WA. Manual and computer-aided space analysis: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112(6):676–680. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70234-8. PMID: 9423701.
  15. Çayönü S, Demirel A, Şaziye SA. Should we use the digital models in pediatric dentistry. Cumhu Dent J 2019;22(4):376–386. DOI: 10.7126/cumudj.612646
  16. Schieffer L, Latzko L, Ulmer H, et al. Comparison between stone and digital cast measurements in mixed dentition: validity, reliability, reproducibility, and objectivity. J Orofac Orthop 2022;83 (Suppl 1):75–84. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-022-00376-9
  17. Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, et al. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136(1):16.e1–16.e4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.019
  18. Houston WJ. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 1983;83(5):382–390. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(83)90322-6
  19. Liczmanski K, Stamm T, Sauerland C, et al. Accuracy of intraoral scans in the mixed dentition: a prospective non-randomized comparative clinical trial. Head Face Med 2020;16(1):11. DOI: 10.1186/s13005-020-00222-6
  20. Aldulaimy D, Al-Khannaq MR, Nahidh M. Conventional versus digital assessment of dental arches’ perimeters in mixed dentition. J Hunan Univ Nat Sci 2022;49(1):101–111. DOI: 10.55463/issn.1674-2974.49.1.13
  21. Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, et al. Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124(1):101–105. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00152-5
  22. Taneva E, Kusnoto B, Evans CA. 3D scanning, imaging, and printing in orthodontics. Issues in contemporary orthodontics 2015 Sep 3;148(5):862–867.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.