Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 14, 2026
07:32
Measuring Maxillary Posterior Tooth Movement: A Model Assessment using Palatal and Dental Superimposition
Published on: February 23, 2024
Agreement Between Manual and Digital Mesiodistal Tooth Measurements on Digitized Plaster Models: A Tooth-Level
Helena Brawańska1, Wiktoria Kukla1, Viktoryia Serha1
1Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia, 40-055 Katowice, Poland.
Journal of Clinical Medicine
|August 13, 2026
Summary
Digital and manual mesiodental tooth width measurements show good agreement but with frequent discrepancies over 0.3 mm for individual posterior teeth. Caution is advised when using digital models for precise individual tooth measurements in orthodontics.
Area of Science:
- Orthodontics
- Dental Technology
- Biomedical Engineering
Background:
- Accurate mesiodental tooth-width measurements are crucial for orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning.
- Digital models from scanned plaster casts can streamline orthodontic workflows.
- Clinical relevance of agreement between manual and digital measurements on digitized models needs evaluation at the individual tooth level.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess agreement, repeatability, and inter-method differences between manual and digital mesiodental tooth-width measurements.
- Measurements were taken from canine to first molar on digitized plaster models.
Main Methods:
- Plaster models from 30 orthodontic patients were digitized using a 3Shape TRIOS 4 scanner.
- Mesiodental widths of teeth 13-16, 23-26, 33-36, and 43-46 were measured manually with calipers and digitally using 3Shape Unite software.
- Intra-observer repeatability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC); inter-method differences were analyzed using Bland-Altman analysis with a 0.3 mm clinical relevance threshold.
Main Results:
- Excellent intra-observer repeatability for both manual (ICC=0.985) and digital (ICC=0.976) measurements.
- Manual measurements averaged 0.150 mm higher than digital measurements, with 95% limits of agreement from -0.647 mm to 0.947 mm.
- 44.2% of individual tooth measurements exceeded the 0.3 mm threshold, with higher discrepancies in first molars and premolars compared to canines.
Conclusions:
- Manual and digital mesiodental width measurements on digitized plaster models demonstrate good overall agreement.
- Frequent individual tooth-level differences exceeding 0.3 mm, especially in posterior teeth, necessitate cautious interpretation of digital measurements.
- High precision in individual tooth dimensions requires careful consideration when relying solely on digital measurements from digitized plaster models.
