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.

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.

The Limitations of Short-Term Orthodontics and Why We Still Need Specialists ­ A Review of the Current Literature.

Short-term orthodontics (STO) serves to align anterior teeth. It has become popular in cosmetic dentistry as an alternative to destructive veneers and lengthy conventional orthodontics. The aim of this article is to raise awareness of the clinical limitations of STO and highlight some of the difficulties encountered with orthodontic retention. It also gives an overview of accredited training available to dentists who wish to develop their orthodontic skills. Clinical relevance: Greater awareness of the clinical limitations of short-term orthodontics will aid GDPs in appropriately selecting their cases and obtaining informed consent from patients. In addition, the article serves as encouragement for those GDPs wishing to develop their orthodontic skills and pursue further accredited training.