TY - JOUR AU - Rabe, Abdoul Hafizou AU - Salek, Fatima AU - El Idrissi, Intissar AU - Zaoui, Fatima AU - Benyahia, Hicham PY - 2021/01/18 Y2 - 2024/03/29 TI - Digital Models and Orthodontic Diagnosis: What Degree of Reliability? JF - Integrative Journal of Medical Sciences JA - Integr J Med Sci VL - 8 IS - SE - REVIEWS DO - 10.15342/ijms.2021.384 UR - https://mbmj.org/index.php/ijms/article/view/384 SP - AB - <p style="margin: 0cm; margin-bottom: .0001pt;"><strong><span style="color: #0e101a;">Background</span></strong><span style="color: #0e101a;">: 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<strong> <br /></strong></span><strong><span style="color: #0e101a;">Method</span></strong><span style="color: #0e101a;">: 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, and prospective and retrospective studies.<br /></span><strong><span style="color: #0e101a;">Results</span></strong><span style="color: #0e101a;">: 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.<br /></span><strong><span style="color: #0e101a;">Conclusion</span></strong><span style="color: #0e101a;">: 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.</span></p> ER -