Skip to main content
Fig. 3 | Head & Face Medicine

Fig. 3

From: Validation of a digital, partly automated three-dimensional cast analysis for evaluation of orthodontic treatment assessment

Fig. 3

Differences between the digital and analogue measuring methods regarding the accessibility of the measuring points and the time required. A, B: Comparison of the deviation between digital and analogue tooth width measurement for teeth with easy access to the reference points (IQR: 0.10, median: 0.00) and close proximal contact to the adjacent teeth (IQR: 0.10, median: 0.00). The teeth with freely accessible measuring points show a smaller measurement difference between the digital and analogue measuring methods compared to the teeth with difficult-to-access reference points; upper crowding IQR: 0.143, median: -0.067; upper spacing IQR: 0.10, median: -0.042; lower crowding IQR: 0.125, median: -0.058; lower spacing IQR: -0.066, median: 0.042 C: Comparison of the time required [sec] between the digital and analogue measurement methods for the tooth width measurement (manual IQR: 157.50, median: 499.00; digital IQR: 39.70, median: 308.00) and the complete model analysis (manual IQR: 236.50, median: 889.00; digital IQR: 64.00, median: 513.55)

Back to article page

Head & Face Medicine

ISSN: 1746-160X

Contact us