Validity and reliability of three-dimensional modeling of orthodontic dental casts using smartphone-based photogrammetric technology

  • Dhelal Al-Rudainy
    Corresponding authors: Dhelal Al-Rudainy: University of Baghdad Bab Al-Moadham Campus, College of Dentistry, Iraq. Liu Yang: The Eighth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518003, China.
    Orthodontic Department, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
    Search for articles by this author
  • Hadeel Adel Al-Lami
    Orthodontic Department, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
    Search for articles by this author
  • Liu Yang
    Corresponding authors: Dhelal Al-Rudainy: University of Baghdad Bab Al-Moadham Campus, College of Dentistry, Iraq. Liu Yang: The Eighth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518003, China.
    Departmet of Stomatology, The Eighth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
    Search for articles by this author
Published:December 16, 2022DOI:


      • Three-dimensional (3D) modeling of orthodontic dental casts can be accomplished by smartphone-based stereophotogrammetry.
      • The accuracy of virtual orthodontic dental casts produced by smartphone-based stereophotogrammetry was about 0.34 mm, and the error of repeated 3D models using this method was 0.03 mm.
      • Stereophotogrammetry using smartphone devices is a simple and low-cost technology for the 3D modeling of orthodontic dental casts.
      • This method is a helpful low-cost tool for the digital archiving of dental casts, eliminating physical storage shortcomings, such as broken models and space requirements.



      The development of intraoral scanning technology has effectively enhanced the digital documentation of orthodontic dental casts. Albeit, the expense of this technology is the main limitation.
      The purpose of the present study was to assess the validity and reliability of virtual three-dimensional (3D) models of orthodontic dental casts, which were constructed using smartphone-based 3D photogrammetry.


      A smartphone was used to capture a set of two-dimensional images for 30 orthodontic dental casts. The captured images were processed to construct 3D virtual images using Agisoft and 3DF Zephyr software programs. To evaluate the accuracy of the virtual 3D models obtained by the two software programs, the virtual 3D models were compared with cone-beam computed tomography scans of the 30 dental casts. Colored maps were used to express the absolute distances between the points of each compared two surfaces; then, the means of the 100%, 95th, and 90th of the absolute distances were calculated. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was applied to detect any significant differences.


      The differences between the constructed 3D images and the cone-beam computed tomography scans were not statistically significant and were accepted clinically. The deviations were mostly in the interproximal areas and in the occlusal details (sharp cusps and deep pits and fissures).


      This study found that smartphone-based stereophotogrammetry is an accurate and reliable method for 3D modeling of orthodontic dental casts, with errors less than the accepted clinically detectable error of 0.5 mm. Smartphone photogrammetry succeeded in presenting occlusal details, but it was difficult to accurately reproduce interproximal areas.

      Graphical abstract


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Crory PVM.
        British Orthodontic Society's initiative on orthodontic retention, a GDP's perspective.
        Br Dent J. 2018; 224: 481-486
        • McGuinness NJ
        • Stephens CD.
        Storage of orthodontic study models in hospital units in the U.K.
        Br J Orthod. 1992; 19: 227-232
        • Abizadeh N
        • Moles DR
        • O'Neill J
        • Noar JH
        Digital versus plaster study models: how accurate and reproducible are they?.
        J Orthod. 2012; 39: 151-159
        • Flügge TV
        • Schlager S
        • Nelson K
        • Nahles S
        • Metzger MC.
        Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144: 471-478
        • Martin CB
        • Chalmers EV
        • McIntyre GT
        • Cochrane H
        • Mossey PA.
        Orthodontic scanners: what's available?.
        J Orthod. 2015; 42: 136-143
        • Pojda D
        • Tomaka AA
        • Luchowski L
        • Tarnawski M.
        Integration and application of multimodal measurement techniques: relevance of photogrammetry to orthodontics.
        Sensors (Basel). 2021; 21: 8026
        • Stuani VT
        • Ferreira R
        • Manfredi GGP
        • Cardoso MV
        • Sant'Ana ACP
        Photogrammetry as an alternative for acquiring digital dental models: a proof of concept.
        Med Hypotheses. 2019; 128: 43-49
        • Zotti F
        • Rosolin L
        • Bersani M
        • Poscolere A
        • Pappalardo D
        • Zerman N.
        Digital dental models: is photogrammetry an alternative to dental extraoral and intraoral scanners?.
        Dent J (Basel). 2022; 10: 1-15
        • Silvester CM
        • Hillson S.
        A critical assessment of the potential for Structure-from-Motion photogrammetry to produce high fidelity 3D dental models.
        Am J Phys Anthropol. 2020; 173: 381-392
        • Livas C
        • Delli K
        • Spijkervet FKL
        • Vissink A
        • Dijkstra PU.
        Concurrent validity and reliability of cephalometric analysis using smartphone apps and computer software.
        Angle Orthod. 2019; 89: 889-896
        • Zamrik OM
        • İşeri H.
        The reliability and reproducibility of an android cephalometric smartphone application in comparison with the conventional method.
        Angle Orthod. 2021; 91: 236-242
        • Moylan HB
        • Carrico CK
        • Lindauer SJ
        • Tüfekçi E.
        Accuracy of a smartphone-based orthodontic treatment-monitoring application: a pilot study.
        Angle Orthod. 2019; 89: 727-733
        • Unkovskiy A
        • Spintzyk S
        • Beuer F
        • Huettig F
        • Röhler A
        • Kraemer-Fernandez P.
        Accuracy of capturing nasal, orbital, and auricular defects with extra- and intraoral optical scanners and smartphone: an in vitro study.
        J Dent. 2022; 117103916
        • Salazar-Gamarra R
        • Seelaus R
        • da Silva JVL
        • da Silva AM
        • Dib LL.
        Monoscopic photogrammetry to obtain 3D models by a mobile device: a method for making facial prostheses.
        J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016; 45: 33
        • Nightingale RC
        • Ross MT
        • Allenby MC
        • Woodruff MA
        • Powell SK.
        A method for economical smartphone-based clinical 3D facial scanning.
        J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 818-825
        • Barbero-García I
        • Lerma JL
        • Miranda P
        • Marqués-Mateu Á.
        Smartphone-based photogrammetric 3D modelling assessment by comparison with radiological medical imaging for cranial deformation analysis.
        Measurement. 2019; 131: 372-379
        • Almukhtar A
        • Ayoub A
        • Khambay B
        • McDonald J
        • Ju X.
        State-of-the-art three-dimensional analysis of soft tissue changes following Le Fort I maxillary advancement.
        Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 54: 812-817
        • Cheung MY
        • Almukhtar A
        • Keeling A
        • et al.
        The accuracy of conformation of a generic surface mesh for the analysis of facial soft tissue changes.
        PLoS One. 2016; 11e0152381
        • Almukhtar A
        • Khambay B
        • Ju X
        • McDonald J
        • Ayoub A.
        Accuracy of generic mesh conformation: the future of facial morphological analysis.
        JPRAS Open. 2017; 14: 39-48
        • Tarazona B
        • Llamas JM
        • Cibrian R
        • Gandia JL
        • Paredes V.
        A comparison between dental measurements taken from CBCT models and those taken from a Digital Method.
        Eur J Orthod. 2013; 35: 1-6
        • Al-Rimawi A
        • Shaheen E
        • Albdour EA
        • Shujaat S
        • Politis C
        • Jacobs R.
        Trueness of cone beam computed tomography versus intra-oral scanner derived three-dimensional digital models: an ex vivo study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019; 30: 498-504
        • Emara A
        • Sharma N
        • Halbeisen FS
        • Msallem B
        • Thieringer FM.
        Comparative evaluation of digitization of diagnostic dental cast (plaster) models using different scanning technologies.
        Dent J (Basel). 2020; 8: 79
        • Luu NS
        • Nikolcheva LG
        • Retrouvey J-M
        • et al.
        Linear measurements using virtual study models.
        Angle Orthod. 2012; 82: 1098-1106
        • Khambay B
        • Ullah R.
        Current methods of assessing the accuracy of three-dimensional soft tissue facial predictions: technical and clinical considerations.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 44: 132-138
        • Al-Rudainy D
        • Ju X
        • Stanton S
        • Mehendale FV
        • Ayoub A.
        Assessment of regional asymmetry of the face before and after surgical correction of unilateral cleft lip.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018; 46: 974-978
        • Oniga E
        • Florentin A
        • Negrila C.
        The evaluation of Cloudcompare software in the process of TLS the evaluation of Cloudcompare software in the process of TLS point clouds registration.
        RevCAD J Geod Cadastar. 2016; 21: 117-124
        • Nulty A.
        A comparison of trueness and precision of 12 3D printers used in dentistry.
        BDJ Open. 2022; 8: 14
        • Au J
        • Mei L
        • Bennani F
        • Kang A
        • Farella M.
        Three-dimensional analysis of lip changes in response to simulated maxillary incisor advancement.
        Angle Orthod. 2020; 90: 118-124
        • Amaral Vargas EO
        • Otero Amaral Vargas D
        • da Silva Coqueiro R
        • Franzotti Sant'anna E
        • Melo Pithon M
        Impact of orthodontic brackets on intraoral and extraoral scans.
        Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2022; 162: 208-213
        • Sharp IG
        • Minick G
        • Carey C
        • Shellhart CW
        • Tilliss T.
        Assessment of simulated vs actual orthodontic tooth movement with a customized fixed lingual appliance using untreated posterior teeth for registration and digital superimposition: a retrospective study.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022; 161: 272-280
        • Piedra-Cascón W
        • Methani MM
        • Quesada-Olmo N
        • Jiménez-Martínez MJ
        • Revilla-León M.
        Scanning accuracy of nondental structured light extraoral scanners compared with that of a dental-specific scanner.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 126: 110-114
        • Kim J
        • Heo G
        • Lagravère MO.
        Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to plaster models and cone-beam computed tomography.
        Angle Orthod. 2014; 84: 443-450
        • Ryan S
        • Kelton S
        • Ghoneima A.
        Three-dimensional analysis of digital models generated from intraoral, extraoral, and CBCT scanning devices.
        J Dent Maxillofac Res. 2019; 2: 1-7
        • San José V
        • Bellot-Arcís C
        • Tarazona B
        • Zamora N
        • O Lagravère M
        • Paredes-Gallardo V
        Dental measurements and Bolton index reliability and accuracy obtained from 2D digital, 3D segmented CBCT, and 3d intraoral laser scanner.
        J Clin Exp Dent. 2017; 9: e1466-e1473