Objectives: To compare the accuracy and reliability of two intraoral scanners, iTero Element 1 and Panda P2, with conventional plaster models in evaluating key orthodontic measurements including intercanine width, intermolar width, overjet, overbite, and Bolton’s anterior and overall ratios. Methods: A comparative in-vivo study was conducted on 30 participants aged 18–30 years with full permanent dentition and no prior orthodontic treatment. Each subject underwent conventional alginate impressions to produce plaster models (Group A), along with intraoral scans using iTero Element 1 (Group B) and Panda P2 (Group C). All scans were exported in STL format and analyzed using GOM Inspect software. Measurements were recorded for all six parameters, and inter-group comparisons were performed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s test. Reliability was assessed using Dahlberg’s formula. Results: There were no statistically significant differences among the three methods for any parameter assessed (p > 0.05). The mean intercanine width difference between iTero and plaster models was 0.06 mm (p = 0.989), while for Panda P2, it was 0.20 mm (p = 0.896). Overjet differences were minimal (≤0.04 mm), and Bolton’s ratios showed deviations under 1%. Dahlberg’s method error ranged from 0.0002 to 0.0007 mm, indicating high reproducibility. Significance: Both iTero and Panda P2 intraoral scanners demonstrated clinically acceptable accuracy and high reliability comparable to conventional plaster models. These findings support the integration of digital scanning into routine orthodontic diagnostics. Further validation in larger and more diverse samples is recommended. Keywords: Scanner, Dental parameters, Conventional impression, Digital impression, Vernier caliper.
Nair et al. (2026) studied this question.