J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2018;12(3):213-220.
doi: 10.15171/joddd.2018.033
PMID: 30443308
PMCID: PMC6231153
  Abstract View: 519
  PDF Download: 368
  Full Text View: 108

Original Article

Comparative study of the usability of two software programs for visualization and analysis of digital orthodontic models

Matheus Felter 1 * , Milena Moraes de Oliveira Lenza 2, Maurício Guilherme Lenza 1, Wendel Minoro Muniz Shibazaki 3, Rhonan Ferreira Silva 1

1 School of Dentistry, Federal University of Goias, Goiânia, Goias, Brazil
2 Orthodontist, Master in Dentistry, Goiânia, Goias, Brazil
3 School of Dentistry, Estadual Paulista University, Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil


Background. Software programs for visualization and analysis of digital orthodontic models, apart from presenting the necessary features for diagnosis and treatment planning, also need to be user-friendly. This characteristic refers to software’ usability, a measure that evaluates how easy it is to use it is by a specific group of professionals. The aim of this study was to compare the usability of free available versions of two software programs for visualization and analysis of digital orthodontic models.

Methods. Digimodel® and OrthoCAD® usability were evaluated through their interface analysis and executing the following procedures: malocclusion classification and models analysis (arch-length and tooth-size discrepancies).

Results. Digimodel® and OrthoCAD® software programs had an installer only for Windows platform, occupied less than 110 megabytes of virtual space and only read files from their respective manufacturers. None possessed Portuguese as a language option. Both allowed visualization of the models in different axes through options present in initial screen, at a click. For model analysis, both software programs required to measure tooth to tooth and performed necessary calculations automatically. However, OrthoCAD® software program was less intuitive because the option for these actions was among several others, within menus, which could cause confusion during navigation. In addition, the marking of points did not always obey the clicked site.

Conclusion. The free access version of the evaluated software programs exhibited usability limitations related to language, supported file format and even the model analysis execution for orthodontic diagnosis. Although OrthoCAD® was inferior, both did not meet orthodontists’ clinical demand against these factors in the evaluated versions.

First name
Last name
Email address
Security code

Article Viewed: 519

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

PDF Downloaded: 368

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

Full Text Viewed: 108

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

Submitted: 03 Apr 2018
Accepted: 20 Aug 2018
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - FireFox Plugin)