A comparison of conventional vs automated digital Peer Assessment Rating scoring using the Carestream 3600 scanner and CS Model+ software system: A randomized controlled trial

Sana Luqmani, Allan Jones, Manoharan Andiappan, Martyn T. Cobourne*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: A prospective randomized study was undertaken to compare conventional study model-based manual Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) scoring with computer-based automated scoring using scanned study models or intraoral scanning. Methods: The sample consisted of 67 patients, mean age 15.03 (range 11-37) years. Sixty-seven patients underwent alginate impression-taking and intraoral scanning (CS 3600; Carestream Dental, Stuttgart, Germany) at a single appointment in a randomized order. For each patient, a weighted PAR score was calculated manually by a calibrated examiner using study models and a PAR ruler (conventional group), and automatically using Carestream Dental CS Model+ software and data from scanned study models (indirect digital group) or intraoral scans (direct digital group). All procedures were timed, and each patient completed a binary questionnaire relating to their experience. Results: There were no significant differences between methods for calculated mean weighted PAR score (P = 0.68). Mean (standard deviation) chairside time for impression-taking was 5.35 (± 1.16) minutes and for intraoral scanning, 7.76 (± 2.76) minutes (P <0.05). Mean (standard deviation) times taken to calculate weighted PAR scores were 2.86 (± 0.96), 5.58 (± 2.33), and 4.58 (± 2.18) minutes for conventional, indirect digital, and direct digital groups, respectively (P >0.05). A total of 61 patients (91%) preferred intraoral scanning to impression-taking. Conclusions: Automated PAR scoring using cast study models or intraoral scanning is valid, though both methods take longer than conventional scoring. Patients prefer intraoral scanning to impression-taking. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03405961). Protocol: The protocol was not published before study commencement.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)148-155.e1
JournalAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume157
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2020

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of conventional vs automated digital Peer Assessment Rating scoring using the Carestream 3600 scanner and CS Model+ software system: A randomized controlled trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this