METHODS: Fifty digital models were scanned from the same plaster models. Arch and tooth size measurements were made by 2 operators, twice. Calibration was done on 10 sets of models and checked using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Data were analyzed by error variances, repeatability coefficient, repeated-measures analysis of variance, and Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS: Error variances ranged between 0.001 and 0.044 mm for the digital caliper method, and between 0.002 and 0.054 mm for the 3D software method. Repeated-measures analysis of variance showed small but statistically significant differences (P <0.05) between the repeated measurements in the arch and buccolingual planes (0.011 and 0.008 mm, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between methods and between operators. Bland-Altman plots showed that the mean biases were close to zero, and the 95% limits of agreement were within ±0.50 mm. Repeatability coefficients for all measurements were similar.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 64 sets of digitised maxilla and mandible dental casts obtained from a sample of dental arch with normal occlusion. For human evaluation, a convenient sample of orthodontic practitioners ranked the photo images of dental cast from the most tapered to the less tapered (square). In the mathematical analysis, dental arches were interpolated using the fourth-order polynomial equation with millimetric acetate paper and AutoCAD software. Finally, the relations between human evaluation and mathematical objective analyses were evaluated.

RESULTS: Human evaluations were found to be generally in agreement, but only at the extremes of tapered and square arch forms; this indicated general human error and observer bias. The two methods used to plot the arch form were comparable.