Comparison of Automatic and Manual Digital Bolton Analyses: Accuracy of Clear Aligner Design Software
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of automated and manual digital Bolton analyses performed using two different clear aligner therapy (CAT) planning software. Materials and Methods: Digital intraoral scans of 40 patients undergoing CAT were analyzed. Mesiodistal tooth widths and Bolton ratios were measured using: (1) a manual digital method via OrthoViewer software, (2) the ClinCheck system, and (3) DentOne software employing AI-based segmentation. The anterior and total Bolton values, as well as individual tooth width measurements, were statistically compared among the three methods. The Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to compare the differences. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for the post-hoc comparison between the groups. Measurement reliability was assessed using intra- and inter-observer intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Results: No significant differences were observed in anterior Bolton ratios across groups (p>0.05), whereas total Bolton values showed significant differences between software and manual measurements (p<0.05). ClinCheck demonstrated smaller deviations from manual measurements compared to DentOne, particularly for maxillary molars and incisors. The largest discrepancies were observed in the posterior region. For teeth 26 and 16, the average deviations from the manual digital method were 0.56 mm and 0.47 mm for ClinCheck, and 0.84 mm and 0.87 mm for DentOne, respectively. Conclusions: While the automated Bolton analyses performed by ClinCheck and DentOne are clinically acceptable, statistically significant differences exist when compared to manual digital methods. These discrepancies are more pronounced in posterior teeth, likely due to anatomical complexity and limitations in intraoral scanning. Thus, clinicians should perform meticulous intraoral scans and consider manual verification when interpreting automated Bolton results, particularly for molars and crowded segments.
Keywords
Ethical Statement
References
- 1. Bolton WA. The clinical application of a tooth-size analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1962;48(7):504-529.
- 2. Lavelle CL. Maxillary and mandibular tooth size in different racial groups and in different occlusal categories. Am J Orthod 1972;61:29-37.
- 3. Turtinen H, Sarja M, Hyvärinen J, Pirhonen P, Pesonen P, Pirttiniemi P, et al. Associations between Bolton ratio and overjet deviations in a Finnish adult population. Acta Odontol Scand 2021;79(8):593-599.
- 4. Bayram M, Özer M. Mandibular incisor extraction treatment of a class I malocclusion with Bolton discrepancy: a case report. Eur J Dent 2007;1(01):54-59.
- 5. Khalil SK, Mudhir AM, Sirri MR. Accuracy of CBCT and intraoral scanner images for measuring tooth widths and Bolton’s ratio: a comparative study with gold standard (plaster models) in Duhok’s adult population. SN Appl Sci 2023;5(10):257.
- 6. Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124(1):101-105.
- 7. Hassan WNW, Othman SA, Chan CS, Ahmad R, Ali SN, Rohim AA. Assessing agreement in measurements of orthodontic study models: digital caliper on plaster models vs 3-dimensional software on models scanned by structured-light scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150(5):886-895.
- 8. Grünheid T, Patel N, De Felippe NL, Wey A, Gaillard PR, Larson BE. Accuracy, reproducibility, and time efficiency of dental measurements using different technologies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;145(2):157-164.
Details
Primary Language
English
Subjects
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics
Journal Section
Research Article
Publication Date
March 27, 2026
Submission Date
July 22, 2025
Acceptance Date
December 2, 2025
Published in Issue
Year 2026 Volume: 29 Number: 1