Anna Westerlund1, Weronika Tancredi2, Maria Ransjö3, Andrea Bresin4, Spyros Psonis5, Olof Torgersson6. 1. Associate professor, Department of Orthodontics, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. Electronic address: anna.westerlund@odontologi.gu.se. 2. Interaction designer, Essiq Consulting Company, Gothenburg, Sweden. 3. Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 4. Head of specialist training, Orthodontist, Public Dental Service, Västra Götaland Region, Gothenburg, Sweden. 5. Orthodontist, Public Dental Healthcare Service, Västra Götaland Region, Gothenburg, Sweden. 6. Associate professor, Department of Applied Information Technology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The introduction of digital cast models is inevitable in the otherwise digitized everyday life of orthodontics. The introduction of this new technology, however, is not straightforward, and selecting an appropriate system can be difficult. The aim of the study was to compare 4 orthodontic digital software systems regarding service, features, and usability. METHODS: Information regarding service offered by the companies was obtained from questionnaires and Web sites. The features of each software system were collected by exploring the user manuals and the software programs. Replicas of pretreatment casts were sent to Cadent (OrthoCAD; Cadent, Carlstadt, NJ), OthoLab (O3DM; OrthoLab, Poznan, Poland), OrthoProof (DigiModel; OrthoProof, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands), and 3Shape (OrthoAnalyzer; 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). The usability of the programs was assessed by experts in interaction design and usability using the "enhanced cognitive walkthrough" method: 4 tasks were defined and performed by a group of domain experts while they were observed by usability experts. RESULTS: The services provided by the companies were similar. Regarding the features, all 4 systems were able to perform basic measurements; however, not all provided the peer assessment rating index or the American Board of Orthodontics analysis, simulation of the treatment with braces, or digital articulation of the casts. All systems demonstrated weaknesses in usability. However, OrthoCAD and 03DM were considered to be easier to learn for first-time users. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the usability of these programs was poor and needs to be further developed. Hands-on training supervised by the program experts is recommended for beginners.
INTRODUCTION: The introduction of digital cast models is inevitable in the otherwise digitized everyday life of orthodontics. The introduction of this new technology, however, is not straightforward, and selecting an appropriate system can be difficult. The aim of the study was to compare 4 orthodontic digital software systems regarding service, features, and usability. METHODS: Information regarding service offered by the companies was obtained from questionnaires and Web sites. The features of each software system were collected by exploring the user manuals and the software programs. Replicas of pretreatment casts were sent to Cadent (OrthoCAD; Cadent, Carlstadt, NJ), OthoLab (O3DM; OrthoLab, Poznan, Poland), OrthoProof (DigiModel; OrthoProof, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands), and 3Shape (OrthoAnalyzer; 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). The usability of the programs was assessed by experts in interaction design and usability using the "enhanced cognitive walkthrough" method: 4 tasks were defined and performed by a group of domain experts while they were observed by usability experts. RESULTS: The services provided by the companies were similar. Regarding the features, all 4 systems were able to perform basic measurements; however, not all provided the peer assessment rating index or the American Board of Orthodontics analysis, simulation of the treatment with braces, or digital articulation of the casts. All systems demonstrated weaknesses in usability. However, OrthoCAD and 03DM were considered to be easier to learn for first-time users. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the usability of these programs was poor and needs to be further developed. Hands-on training supervised by the program experts is recommended for beginners.
Authors: Alijda J Sabelis; Mette A R Kuijpers; Rania M Nada; Yu-Ting Chiu; Ewald M Bronkhorst; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman; Piotr S Fudalej Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2015-10-13 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Jacob Sigvardsson; Samuel Nilsson; Maria Ransjö; Anna Westerlund Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Leonardo T Camardella; Edwin M Ongkosuwito; E Willemijn Penning; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman; Oswaldo V Vilella; K Hero Breuning Journal: Korean J Orthod Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 1.372