A Comparative Study of Plaster Casts and Digital Models for Orthodontic Measurements in Different Crowding Severities
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of linear measurements between the traditional gold-standard plaster model and digital models (cast scans and intraoral scans) across different severities of dental crowding.
Methods: Fifteen subjects requiring orthodontic treatment were divided into two groups based on crowding severity: mild (≤3.0 mm) and moderate to severe (>3.0 mm). For each subject, three types of models were generated: plaster cast (PC), digital cast scan (CS), and intraoral scan (IOS). Linear measurements were taken using digital calipers for PC and Ortho Analyzer™ software for CS and IOS. The accuracy of measurements was determined using the deviation between the plaster casts and digital models. The accuracy was analyzed using Welch’s ANOVA and the Games–Howell multiple comparison test (p<0.05).
Results: All three model types demonstrated high intra- and inter-examiner reliability (ICC>0.97). No significant differences were found in the clinical arch length or Bolton ratios between model types. Minor, non-significant underestimations in total tooth width were observed in the digital models, particularly in maxillary teeth with moderate-tosevere crowding (maximum mean difference: 1.65 mm; p=0.06).
Conclusions: Both cast scans and intraoral scans are reliable alternatives to plaster casts for orthodontic measurements. While digital models slightly underestimated total tooth widths and Bolton ratios and overestimated clinical arch lengths, these variations remained within clinically acceptable limits. Operator training and scanning protocol standardization remain critical in crowded dentitions.
1. Proffit W, Fields H, Larson B, Sarver D. Contemporary Orthodontics. 6th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2018.
2. Athanasiou A. Orthodontic Cephalometry. London: Mosby-Wolfe; 1995.
3. Bolton W. The clinical application of a tooth-size analysis. Am J Orthod. 1962;48(7):504-29.
4. White L. Manual of Orthodontics. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1996.
5. Rafiei E, Haerian A, Fadaei Tehrani P, Shokrollahi M. Agreement of in vitro orthodontic measurements on dental plaster casts and digital models using Maestro 3D ortho studio software. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2022;8(5):1149-57.
6. Cuperus A, Harms M, Rangel F, Bronkhorst E, Schols J, Breuning K. Dental models made with an intraoral scanner: a validation study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;142(3):308-13.
7. Patzelt S, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub J, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(6):1687-94.
8. Zhang F, Suh KJ, Lee KM. Validity of intraoral scans compared with plaster models: an in-vivo comparison of dental measurements and 3D surface analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0157713.
9. Lee S, Gallucci G. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(1):111-5.
10. Pellitteri F, Albertini P, Vogrig A, Spedicato GA, Siciliani G, Lombardo L. Comparative analysis of intraoral scanners accuracy using 3D software: an in vivo study. Prog Orthod. 2022;23(1):21.
11. Jacob HB, Wyatt GD, Buschang PH. Reliability and validity of intraoral and extraoral scanners. Prog Orthod. 2015;16:38.
12. Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent. 2013;16(1):11-21.
13. Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi C. Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;149(2):161-70.
14. Grünheid T, Patel N, DeLeon E. Accuracy, reproducibility, and time efficiency of dental measurements using different technologies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(2):157-64.
15. Moon YG, Lee KM. Comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scans between complete-arch scan and quadrant scan. Prog Orthod. 2020;21(1):36.
16. Camardella LT, Vilella OV, van Hezel MM, Breuning KH. Accuracy of stereolithographically printed digital models compared to plaster models. J Orofac Orthop. 2017;78(5):394-402.
17. Martínez-Rodríguez C, Patricia JP, Ricardo OA, Alejandro IL. Personalized dental medicine: impact of intraoral and extraoral clinical variables on the precision and efficiency of intraoral scanning. J Pers Med. 2020;10(3):92.
18. Abizadeh N, Moles D, O’Neill J, Noar J. Digital versus plaster study models: how accurate and reproducible are they?. J Orthod. 2012;39(3):151-9.
19. Yoon J, Yu H, Choi Y, Choi T, Choi S, Cha J. Model analysis of digital models in moderate to severe crowding: in vivo validation and clinical application. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:8414605. doi: 10.1155/2018/8414605.
20. Liang YM, Rutchakitprakarn L, Kuang SH, Wu TY. Comparing the reliability and accuracy of clinical measurements using plaster model and the digital model system based on crowding severity. J Chin Med Assoc. 2018;81(9):842-7.
21. Lo Giudice A, Muraglie S, Martina S, Ronsivalle V, Leonardi R. Accuracy and reliability of space analysis measurements in digital models with different degrees of crowding. Open Dent J. 2019;13:505–11.
22. Lin WQ, Pan CY, Chen PH, Liu CT, Hung CC, Lan TH. Trueness of intraoral scanning for different tooth-size archlength deficiencies. J Dent Sci. 2024;19(1):397-403.
23. Alkadi L. A Comprehensive Review of Factors That Influence the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023;13(21):3291
24. Pasini M, Carli E, Giambastiani F, Giuca M, Tripodi D. Three-dimensional analysis of upper and lower arches using digital technology: measurement of the index of Bolton and correspondence between arch shapes and orthodontic arches. Dent J (Basel). 2023;11(8):188.
25. Coleman R, Hembree JJ, Weber F. Dimensional stability of irreversible hydrocolloid impression material. Am J Orthod. 1979;75(4):438-46.
26. Miller M. Syneresis in alginate impression materials. Br Dent J. 1975;139(11):425-30.
27. Im J, Cha J, Lee K, Yu H, Hwang C. Comparison of virtual and manual tooth setups with digital and plaster models in extraction cases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(4):434-42.
28. Jánosi K, Cerghizan D, Mártha K, Elekes E, Szakács B, Elekes Z, et al. Evaluation of intraoral full-arch scan versus conventional preliminary impression. J Clin Med. 2023;12(17):5508.
29. Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(3):471-8.
30. Tran V, Lam T, Khue T, Phi T, Viet H. Accuracy and reliability of digital dental models obtained by intraoral scans compared with plaster models. Appl Sci. 2025;15(6):2927.
31. 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.e1-4.
32. Stevens D, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud D, Heo G, Major P. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and identification of crowding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129(6):794-803.
33. Kim J, Lagravère M. Accuracy of Bolton analysis measured in laser scanned digital models compared with plaster models and cone-beam computed tomography images. Korean J Orthod. 2016;46(1):13-9.
34. Othman S, Harradine N. Tooth-size discrepancy and Bolton’s ratios: a literature review. J Orthod. 2006;33(1):45-51.
35. Fratila AM, Saceleanu A, Arcas VC, Fratila N, Earar K. Enhancing intraoral scanning accuracy: from the influencing factors to a procedural guideline. J Clin Med. 2025;14(10):3562.
36. Park S, Byun S, Oh S, Lee H, Kim J, Yang B, et al. Evaluation of the reliability, reproducibility and validity of digital orthodontic measurements based on various digital models among young patients. J Clin Med. 2020;9(9):2728.
37. Verma RK, Singh SP, Verma S, Kumar V, Bhupali NR, Arora S. Comparison of reliability, validity, and accuracy of linear measurements made on pre- and posttreatment digital study models with conventional plaster study models. J Orthod Sci. 2019;8:18. doi:10.4103/jos.JOS_14_19.
38. Anh JW, Park JM, Chun YS, Kim M, Kim M. A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction. Korean J Orthod. 2016;46(1):3-12.