Objective: To evaluate the reliability of digital orthodontic setup technology by comparing it with manual setups and models cast at the end of orthodontic treatment. Materials and Methods: Initial models, manual setups, and final models of 20 patients were used. The initial and final models, as well as the manual setups, were scanned using a 3Shape R-700 scanner, while the digital setups were fabricated based on the initial models using 3Shape OrthoAnalyzer software. Evaluation of the models based on the manual setup, digital setup, and final models of each patient was performed using the following linear measurements: intercanine widths, intermolar widths, and length of the upper and lower dental arches. Results:The results disclosed that none of the measures assessed through the manual setup, digital setup, and final models showed statistically significant differences (P . .05). Conclusions: Based on these findings, it can be inferred that digital setups are as effective and accurate as manual setups and constitute a tool for diagnosing and treatment planning that can be reliably reproduced in orthodontic treatments. (Angle Orthod. 2016;86:255-259.)

The use of a standardized terminology in the medical sciences is essential for both clinical practice and scientific research. In addition to facilitating communication between professionals, it enhances the reliability of comparisons made between studies from different areas, thereby contributing to a higher level of scientific evidence. Examples of attempts made to standardize the terminology in other areas dedicated to the study of craniofacial morphology can be found in the literature. On the other hand, one can find in the orthodontic literature a variety of terms that render the consensus and communication between orthodontists and other researchers even more problematic. As an example, one could cite the use of the terms brachyfacial, mesofacial and dolichofacial, which form part of a cranial index terminology used to describe facial types. Thus, a reflection on the origin and differences of the terms used to describe the human facial phenotype may pave the way toward a consensus regarding the meaning that best represents the craniofacial patterns.Keywords: Face. Terminology. Classification. » The authors report no commercial, proprietary or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article. A padronização da nomenclatura utilizada nas ciências médicas é fundamental tanto para a prática clínica quanto para a pesquisa científica. Além de facilitar a comunicação entre os profissionais, aumenta a confiabilidade da comparação entre trabalhos de diferentes áreas, favorecendo um melhor nível de evidência científica. Exemplos de esforços, em áreas também voltadas ao estudo da morfologia craniofacial, no sentido de uniformização da terminologia podem ser encontrados na literatura médica. Por outro lado, observa-se na literatura ortodôntica uma diversidade de termos que torna mais difícil o consenso e a comunicação entre ortodontistas e demais pesquisadores. Como exemplo, pode-se citar o uso dos termos braquifacial, mesofacial e dolicofacial, terminologia relativa ao índice craniano utilizada para descrever o tipo facial. Sendo assim, a reflexão sobre a origem e diferenças dos termos utilizados para descrever o fenó-tipo facial humano pode ser útil ao consenso do significado que melhor representa o padrão craniofacial.Palavras-chave: Face. Terminologia. Classificação.

IntroductionTechnological advances in Dentistry have emerged primarily in the area of diagnostic tools. One example is the 3D scanner, which can transform plaster models into three-dimensional digital models.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the reliability of tooth size-arch length discrepancy analysis measurements performed on three-dimensional digital models, and compare these measurements with those obtained from plaster models.Material and MethodsTo this end, plaster models of lower dental arches and their corresponding three-dimensional digital models acquired with a 3Shape R700T scanner were used. All of them had lower permanent dentition. Four different tooth size-arch length discrepancy calculations were performed on each model, two of which by manual methods using calipers and brass wire, and two by digital methods using linear measurements and parabolas.ResultsData were statistically assessed using Friedman test and no statistically significant differences were found between the two methods (P > 0.05), except for values found by the linear digital method which revealed a slight, non-significant statistical difference.ConclusionsBased on the results, it is reasonable to assert that any of these resources used by orthodontists to clinically assess tooth size-arch length discrepancy can be considered reliable.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare angular and linear cephalometric measurements obtained through manual and digital cephalometric tracings using Dolphin Imaging ® 11.0 software with lateral cephalometric radiographs. Methods: The sample consisted of 50 lateral cephalometric radiographs. One properly calibrated examiner performed 50 manual and 50 digital cephalometric tracings using eight angular measurements (FMA, IMPA, SNA, SNB, ANB, 1.NA, 1.NB, Y-Axis) and six linear measurements (1-NA, 1-NB, Co-Gn, Co-A, E Line-Lower lip and LAFH). Results were assessed using Student's t-test. Results: The results showed no statistically significant differences in any of the assessed measurements (p> 0.05). Conclusions: Conventional and computerized methods showed consistency in all angular and linear measurements. The computer program Dolphin Imaging ® 11.0 can be used reliably as an aid in diagnosing, planning, monitoring and evaluating orthodontic treatment both in clinical and research settings. Abstract Keywords: Cephalometry. Orthodontics. Computerized diagnosis.