Comparison of dental dimensions in models developed with digital procedures and plaster models


Aim: This study aimed to collect evidence on the validity and reliability of measurements obtained from digital impression techniques.
Materials and Methods: This comparative study was conducted on 31 patients. Intraoral scanner was applied to all patients. For each patient, an alginate impression of the upper maxilla was taken and later the 3D digital model was extracted by dental cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). For preparation of plaster models, alginate impressions were taken and immediately poured with dental stone. In the next stage, a comparison was performed among the intraoral scanner, CBCT, and plaster models in terms of tooth size, dental width, and intra-arch dimensions.
Results: Measuring tooth size and intra-arch dimensions in digital images obtained from intraoral scanner and CBCT were in most cases lower than the results obtained in the plaster models but the differences between digital techniques and plaster models are not clinically noticeable.
Conclusions: Digital systems including intraoral scanner and CBCT are acceptable for clinical use in terms of accuracy.
Keywords: Cone Beam Computed Tomography; Intraoral scanning; Plaster casts; Alginates; Orthodontics; Methods.


1. Petrescu SM, Țuculină MJ, Popa DL, Duță A, Sălan AI, Voinea Georgescu R, Diaconu OA, Turcu AA, Mocanu H, Nicola AG, Dascălu IT. Modeling and Simulating an Orthodontic System Using Virtual Methods. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12(5):1296. PMID: 35626452; PMCID: PMC9141121.

2. Tepedino M, Cornelis MA, Chimenti C, Cattaneo PM. Correlation between tooth size-arch length discrepancy and interradicular distances measured on CBCT and panoramic radiograph: an evaluation for miniscrew insertion. Dent Press J Orthodont. 2018;23:39. e1-. e13.

3. Kumar KA, Gupta S, Sandhu H. Determination of mesiodistal width of maxillary anterior teeth using inner canthal distance. Medical J Armed Forces India. 2015;71:S376-S81.

4. Julyan J, Julyan J, De Lange J. Comparison of three different instruments for orthodontic study model analysis. South African Dental J. 2020;75(6):298-302.

5. Kasparova M, Grafova L, Dvorak P, Dostalova T, Prochazka A, Eliasova H, Prusa J, Kakawand S. Possibility of reconstruction of dental plaster cast from 3D digital study models. Biomed Eng Online. 2013;12:49. PMID: 23721330; PMCID: PMC3686614.

6. Pachêco-Pereira C, De Luca Canto G, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Variation of orthodontic treatment decision-making based on dental model type: A systematic review. The Angle Orthodontist. 2014;85(3):501-9.

7. Rebong RE, Stewart KT, Utreja A, Ghoneima AA. Accuracy of three-dimensional dental resin models created by fused deposition modeling, stereolithography, and Polyjet prototype technologies: A comparative study. The Angle Orthodont. 2018;88(3):363-9.

8. Cantín M, Muñoz M, Olate S. Generation of 3D tooth models based on three-dimensional scanning to study the morphology of permanent teeth. Int J Morphol. 2015;33(2):782-7.

9. De Luca Canto G, Pachêco‐Pereira C, Lagravere M, Flores‐Mir C, Major P. Intra‐arch dimensional measurement validity of laser‐scanned digital dental models compared with the original plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofacial Res. 2015;18(2):65-76.

10. Erten O, Yılmaz BN. Three-dimensional imaging in orthodontics. Turkish J Orthodont. 2018;31(3):86.

11. Christopoulou I, Kaklamanos EG, Makrygiannakis MA, Bitsanis I, Perlea P, Tsolakis AI. Intraoral Scanners in Orthodontics: A Critical Review. Inter J Environment Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1407.

12. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):1-11.

13. Grünheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146(5):673-82.

14. Impellizzeri A, Horodynski M, De Stefano A, Palaia G, Polimeni A, Romeo U, Guercio-Monaco E, Galluccio G. CBCT and Intra-Oral Scanner: The Advantages of 3D Technologies in Orthodontic Treatment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(24):9428. PMID: 33339197; PMCID: PMC7765620.

15. Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Nolthenius HET, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y. 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):140-7.

16. Farzanegan F, Zarch SHH, Mobasheri MF, Rangrazi A. Evaluation of the relationship between morphology, volume, and density of the mandible and dentofacial vertical dimension using cone beam computed tomography. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clin Integr. 2020;19.


18. Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129(6):794-803.

19. Torassian G, Kau CH, English JD, Powers J, Bussa HI, Marie Salas-Lopez A, et al. Digital models vs plaster models using alginate and alginate substitute materials. The Angle Orthodontist. 2010;80(4):662-9.

20. Cuperus AMR, Harms MC, Rangel FA, Bronkhorst EM, Schols JG, Breuning KH. Dental models made with an intraoral scanner: a validation study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;142(3):308-13.

21. Cerroni S, Pasquantonio G, Condò R, Cerroni L. Orthodontic fixed appliance and periodontal status: An updated systematic review. Open Dent J 2018;12:614.

22. Proffit WR, Fields Jr HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2006.

23. Kumar AA, Phillip A, Kumar S, Rawat A, Priya S, Kumaran V. Digital model as an alternative to plaster model in assessment of space analysis. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2015;7(Suppl 2):S465.

24. Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(1):16. e1-e4.

25. Shellhart WC, Lange DW, Kluemper GT, Hicks EP, Kaplan AL. Reliability of the Bolton tooth-size analysis when applied to crowded dentitions. The Angle Orthodontist. 1995;65(5):327-34.

26. Fleming P, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofacial Res. 2011;14(1):1-16.

27. Becker K, Schmücker U, Schwarz F, Drescher D. Accuracy and eligibility of CBCT to digitize dental plaster casts. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2018;22(4):1817-23.

28. Robbena J, Muallahb J, Wesemannc C, Nowakd R, Mahe J, Pospiechf P, et al. Suitability and accuracy of CBCT model scan: an in vitro study Eignung und Genauigkeit von DVT-Aufnahmen für die Digitalisierung von Gipsmodellen: Eine In-vitro-Untersuchung. Int J Comput Dent. 2017;20(4):363-75.

29. Vögtlin C, Schulz G, Jäger K, Müller B. Comparing the accuracy of master models based on digital intra-oral scanners with conventional plaster casts. Physics in Medicine. 2016;1:20-6.

30. Al-Mashraqi AA, Alhammadi MS, Gadi AA, Altharawi RA, Zamim KAH, Halboub E. Accuracy and reproducibility of permanent dentitions and dental arch measurements: comparing three different digital models with a plaster study cast. Int J Comput Dent. 2021;24(4):353-62.

31. Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. European journal of orthodontics. 2016;38(4):422-8.

32. Khraishi H, Duane B. Evidence for use of intraoral scanners under clinical conditions for obtaining full-arch digital impressions is insufficient. Evidence-based dentistry. 2017;18(1):24-5.
How to Cite
SHAFAEE, Hooman et al. Comparison of dental dimensions in models developed with digital procedures and plaster models. Journal of Oral Research, [S.l.], v. 13, n. 1, p. 15-25, mar. 2024. ISSN 0719-2479. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 19 apr. 2024. doi: