Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2025 Feb 2:10556656251314264. doi: 10.1177/10556656251314264. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare the reliability of different digitizing methods not only among themselves but also with direct measurements from facial plaster models of unoperated cleft babies.
DESIGN: Single-center retrospective study.
SETTING: The study consisted facial models of babies with unilateral (UCLP, n = 65) and bilateral (BCLP, n = 65) cleft lip and palate from the archives of the Department of Orthodontics, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey. Those models were digitized using Medit i600, iTero Element 2 (Align Technology), and E3 3Shape scanning devices. A digital caliper with a 0.03 precision (INSIZE Digital Caliper) was used for manual measurements on plaster models. 3Shape Ortho Analyzer software was used for digital measurements.
RESULTS: All scanning methods were reliable and compatible with a rate of 90% or more compared to manual measurements. The E3 3Shape device showed the lowest deviations (UCLP, between 0.04 and 0.11 mm; BCLP, between 0.04 and 0.25 mm) from manual measurements. In the UCLP group, Medit i600 presented the highest deviation (0.15-0.58 mm) whereas Itero Element 2 showed the highest deviation in the BCLP group (0.16-0.46 mm). Although there were statistically significant differences in the deviations of digital measurements, the values were still within clinically acceptable limits.
CONCLUSION: Intraoral scanners were less reliable in topographic measurements, especially in cases with increased depth. Although the highest compatible results were found with E3 3Shape model scanner, iTero Element 2 and Medit i600 were promising and advisable for digitizing and archiving the plaster models of babies with cleft lip and palate.
PMID:39894926 | DOI:10.1177/10556656251314264
