Background: Our study aims to evaluate, through a systematic review, the reliability of numerical models compared to conventional models on the main parameters of orthodontic diagnosis
Method: four databases were consulted: PubMed; Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Ebscohost. The research included published studies since 2010, meta-analysis studies, randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective studies.
Results: Among 3811 selected references, only five studies met our inclusion criteria. In the systematic review, there were statistical differences between the digital models and the plaster models. However, this difference is clinically acceptable. On the other hand, there are some limitations, relative to the types of the severity of the congestion, the elapsed time to digitize, and the numerical means.
Conclusion: The results of our systematic review have shown that there is no clinically significant difference between the numerical and physical models for the majority of diagnostic parameters.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2021 Rabe AH et al.