LAUSR

Orthodontists have seen their practices evolve from estimating distances on plaster models to estimating distances on non-immersive virtual models. However, if the estimation of distance using real models can generate errors (compared to the real distance measured using tools), which remains acceptable from a clinical point of view, is this also the case for distance estimation performed on digital models? To answer this question, 50 orthodontists (31 women and 19 men) with an average age of 36 years (σ = 12.84; min = 23; max = 63) participated in an experiment consisting of estimating 3 types of distances (mandibular crowding, inter-canine distance, and inter-molar distance) on 6 dental models, including 3 real and 3 virtual models. Moreover, these models were of three different levels of complexity (easy, medium, and difficult). The results showed that, overall, the distances were overestimated (compared to the distance measured using an instrument) regardless of the situation (estimates on real or virtual models), but this overestimation was greater for the virtual models than for the real models. In addition, the mental load associated with the estimation tasks was considered by practitioners to be greater for the estimation tasks performed virtually compared to the same tasks performed on plaster models. Finally, when the estimation task was more complex, the number of estimation errors decreased in both the real and virtual situations, which could be related to the greater number of therapeutic issues associated with more complex models.