Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 29, 2025
Author Spotlight: Evaluating Clinicians' Adoption of Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Cannulation Through Simulation Training
Published on: August 9, 2024
A comparison of conventional vs automated digital Peer Assessment Rating scoring using the Carestream 3600 scanner
Sana Luqmani1, Allan Jones2, Manoharan Andiappan3
1Centre for Craniofacial Development and Regeneration, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Orthodontics, Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Kingston, United Kingdom.
Introduction:
A prospective randomized study was undertaken to compare conventional study model-based manual Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) scoring with computer-based automated scoring using scanned study models or intraoral scanning.
Methods:
The sample consisted of 67 patients, mean age 15.03 (range 11-37) years. Sixty-seven patients underwent alginate impression-taking and intraoral scanning (CS 3600; Carestream Dental, Stuttgart, Germany) at a single appointment in a randomized order. For each patient, a weighted PAR score was calculated manually by a calibrated examiner using study models and a PAR ruler (conventional group), and automatically using Carestream Dental CS Model+ software and data from scanned study models (indirect digital group) or intraoral scans (direct digital group). All procedures were timed, and each patient completed a binary questionnaire relating to their experience.
Results:
There were no significant differences between methods for calculated mean weighted PAR score (P = 0.68). Mean (standard deviation) chairside time for impression-taking was 5.35 (± 1.16) minutes and for intraoral scanning, 7.76 (± 2.76) minutes (P <0.05). Mean (standard deviation) times taken to calculate weighted PAR scores were 2.86 (± 0.96), 5.58 (± 2.33), and 4.58 (± 2.18) minutes for conventional, indirect digital, and direct digital groups, respectively (P >0.05). A total of 61 patients (91%) preferred intraoral scanning to impression-taking.
Conclusions:
Automated PAR scoring using cast study models or intraoral scanning is valid, though both methods take longer than conventional scoring. Patients prefer intraoral scanning to impression-taking.
Registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03405961).
Protocol:
The protocol was not published before study commencement.
