Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Introduction: Few studies succeeded on demonstrating that dentitions are unique.Methodological limitations may have influenced these outcomes.Objective: The present study aims to validate software packages for comparing human dentitions.Material and methods: A pool of 40 dental casts were laser scanned (XCAD 3D®, XCADCAM Technology®, São Paulo, Brazil) and implemented in Geomagic Studio® (GS) (3D Systems®, Rock Hill, USA), Cloud Compare® (CC) (Telecom Paris Tech® and EDF®, Paris, France), and Maestro 3D Ortho Studio® (MS) (AGE Solutions®, Pontedera, Italy) software packages to evaluate metric and superimposition tools.Results: Software performances did not significantly differ (p>0.05)considering cropping, landmarking and superimposition functions.GS was more precise for detecting identical models (p<0.05).Inter and intra examiner reproducibility reached optimal outcomes.Calibration was assured for software measuring tools and scanning process.Conclusion: Both GS and CC may be used for comparing 3D anterior dentitions.However, more practical and less operator-depending procedures are available in GS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Franco et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: