Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to assess the accuracy, validity, and reliability of measurements obtained from virtual dental study models compared with those obtained from plaster models. METHODS: PubMed, PubMed Central, National Library of Medicine Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical trials, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, Google Scholar, and LILACs were searched from January 2000 to November 2014. A grading system described by the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care and the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment were used to rate the methodologic quality of the articles. RESULTS: Thirty-five relevant articles were selected. The methodologic quality was high. No significant differences were observed for most of the studies in all the measured parameters, with the exception of the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System. CONCLUSIONS: Digital models are as reliable as traditional plaster models, with high accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility. Landmark identification, rather than the measuring device or the software, appears to be the greatest limitation. Furthermore, with their advantages in terms of cost, time, and space required, digital models could be considered the new gold standard in current practice.