- Visibility 384 Views
- Downloads 801 Downloads
- Permissions
- DOI 10.18231/j.ijodr.2025.019
-
CrossMark
Orthodontic softwares – A detailed review
- Author Details:
-
Nausheer Ahmed
-
Anbumuhil TR
-
Abrar Younus A *
-
Anusha PG
-
K Shrin Fathima
Abrar Younus A *
Orthodontic treatment planning software has significantly transformed the orthodontics landscape by offering sophisticated tools for diagnosis, treatment simulation, and appliance design. This article evaluates various software applications, focusing on their features, advantages, and limitations. These digital solutions have notably enhanced the efficiency and precision of orthodontic treatment planning, providing clinicians with essential resources to improve patient care. The review underscores various software available for model analysis, cephalometric analysis, treatment planning and how integrating these software applications into orthodontic practice has modernized traditional methods and fostered advancements in the field.
Keywords: Orthodontic Software’s, Digiceph, Nemoceph, Maestro 3d, 3shape, Arch form, Dolphin
References
- Panayi NC, Efstathiou S, Christopoulou I, Kotantoula G, Tsolakis IA. Digital orthodontics: Present and future. AJO-DO Clin Companion. 2024;4(1):14–25.
- Pandey R, Kamble R, Kanani H. Revolutionizing Smiles: Advancing Orthodontics Through Digital Innovation. Cureus. 2024;16(7):e64086.
- Tarraf NE, Ali DM. Present and the future of digital orthodontics. Semin Orthod. 2018;24(4):376–85.
- Peluso MJ, Josell SD, Levine SW, Lorei BJ. Digital models: An introduction. Semin Orthod. 2004;10(3):226–38.
- OrthoAnalyzer 2012 User Manual. 2006. http://promed.ua/wp- content/uploads/2012/01/2012_OrthoAnalyzer_English.pdf
- Pavan KM, Praveen KN. Model analysis on a smartphone. J Clin Orthod. 2012;46(6):356–8.
- Celik E, Polat-Ozsoy O, Toygar Memikoglu TU. Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31(3):241–6.
- Ristau B, Coreil M, Chapple A, Armbruster P, Ballard R. Comparison of AudaxCeph®’s fully automated cephalometric tracing technology to a semi-automated approach by human examiners. Int Orthod. 2022;20(4):100691.
- Farooq MU, Khan MA, Imran S, Sameera A, Qureshi A, Ahmed SA, et al. Assessing the Reliability of Digitalized Cephalometric Analysis in Comparison with Manual Cephalometric Analysis. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(10):ZC20–3.
- Katyal D, Balakrishnan N. Evaluation of the accuracy and reliability of WebCeph – An artificial intelligence-based online software. APOS Trends Orthodon. 2022;12(4):271–6.
- N G, S N, HK V, Ramegowda S, AM S. Handy Gadget for Cephalometric Analysis: A Systematic Review. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2021;55(1):64–71.
- Faber RD, Burstone CJ, Solon DJ. Computerized interactive orthodontic treatment planning. Am J Orthod. 1978;73(1):36-46.
- Barreto MS, Faber J, Vogel CJ, Araujo TM. Reliability of digital orthodontic setups. Angle Orthod. 2016;86(2):255–9.
- Sahim S, Quars F El. Virtual Planning versus Traditional Planning in Orthodontic-Surgical Treatment: A Review. Open Access Lib J. 2023;10(7):1–9.
- Peterman RJ, Jiang S, Johe R, Mukherjee PM. Accuracy of Dolphin visual treatment objective (VTO) prediction software on class III patients treated with maxillary advancement and mandibular setback. Prog Orthod. 2016;17(1):19.
- Park JH, Lee GH, Moon DN, Lee KC. A completely digital indirect bonding technique using a customized virtual orthodontic bracket setup and 3-dimensional printing technology. AJO-DO Clin Companion. 2021;1(3):198–206.
- Xue C, Xu H, Guo Y, Xu L, Dhami Y, Wang H, et al. Accurate bracket placement using a computer-aided design and computer- aided manufacturing–guided bonding device: An in vivo study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2020;157(2):269–77.
- Panayi NC. In-house three-dimensional designing and printing customized brackets. J World Fed Orthod. 2022;11(6):190–6.
- Waldman A, Moshiri M, Bonebreak-Jackson C. Introduction to lightforce. J Clin Orthod. 2023;57(9):500–10.