| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3115646 | American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics | 2015 | 8 Pages |
•We compared 4 digital software systems regarding services, features, and usability.•All 4 systems were similar regarding services and features.•In general, the usability of these programs was poor and needs to be further developed.•Hands-on training supervised by experts of the programs is recommended for beginners.
IntroductionThe 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.MethodsInformation 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsIn 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.
