Dental measurements and Bolton index reliability and accuracy obtained from 2D digital, 3D segmented CBCT, and 3d intraoral laser scanner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the reliability and accuracy of direct and indirect dental measurements derived from two types of 3D virtual models: generated by intraoral laser scanning (ILS) and segmented cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), comparing these with a 2D digital model. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred patients were selected. All patients' records included initial plaster models, an intraoral scan and a CBCT. Patients´ dental arches were scanned with the iTero® intraoral scanner while the CBCTs were segmented to create three-dimensional models. To obtain 2D digital models, plaster models were scanned using a conventional 2D scanner. When digital models had been obtained using these three methods, direct dental measurements were measured and indirect measurements were calculated. Differences between methods were assessed by means of paired t-tests and regression models. Intra and inter-observer error were analyzed using Dahlberg´s d and coefficients of variation. RESULTS: Intraobserver and interobserver error for the ILS model was less than 0.44 mm while for segmented CBCT models, the error was less than 0.97 mm. ILS models provided statistically and clinically acceptable accuracy for all dental measurements, while CBCT models showed a tendency to underestimate measurements in the lower arch, although within the limits of clinical acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT, intraoral laser scanner, 2D digital models, 3D models, dental measurements, reliability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".