## 3 Results
### Bland-Altman analysis  
The inter-examiner error was found to be statistically insignificant, demonstrating excellent reliability with a mean ICC of 0.948 (ICC = 0.842-0.998) (Table 5).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Measurements**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Plaster Models**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Digital Models**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)**-Values**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-6}  & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & \\ \hline OJ & 2.91 & 1.19 & 2.87 & 1.32 & 0.418 \\ \hline OB & 2.62 & 1.52 & 2.49 & 1.61 & 0.092 \\ \hline AWL6 & 54.74 & 2.55 & 54.94 & 2.59 & 0.133 \\ \hline AWL6 & 46.71 & 2.76 & 46.76 & 2.84 & 0.458 \\ \hline ADU6 & 39.58 & 2.19 & 39.61 & 2.21 & 0.084 \\ \hline ADL6 & 34.29 & 2.07 & 34.40 & 2.04 & 0.072 \\ \hline \hline OJ, overjet; OB, overbite; AWL6, arch width at the first permanent upper molar; AWL6, arch width at the first permanent lower molar; ADU6, arch depth at the first permanent upper molar; ADL6, arch depth at the first permanent lower molar (ADL6). SD, standard deviation; \(p\)-values were obtained from paired \(t\)-tests. & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: A comparison of measurements of the overjet, overbite, and arch width and depth between the plaster models and intraoral scans.  
Figure 1: Bland–Altman analysis of the measurements of tooth heights and widths between the plaster and digital models.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Tooth** & **ICC Among Examiners** & **Tooth** & **ICC Among Examiners** \\ \hline W11 & 0.947 & H11 & 0.997 \\ \hline W12 & 0.981 & H12 & 0.982 \\ \hline W13 & 0.976 & H13 & 0.995 \\ \hline W14 & 0.931 & H14 & 0.969 \\ \hline W15 & 0.877 & H15 & 0.990 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Inter-rater correlation coefficient based on measurements of tooth widths and heights.  
Similarly, intra-examiner errors were found to be statistically insignificant, showing excellent reliability among the three examiners. The mean ICCs for examiners one, two, and three were 0.917 (range: 0.648-0.999), 0.927 (range: 0.655-0.998), and 0.968 (range: 0.661-0.999), respectively (Table 6).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Tooth** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Measureer** \\ **One** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Measureer** \\ **Two** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Measureer** \\ **Three** \\ \end{tabular} & **Tooth** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Measureer** \\ **One** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Measureer** \\ **Two** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Measureer** \\ **Three** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline W11 & 0.956 & 0.892 & 0.968 & H11 & 0.997 & 0.984 & 0.997 \\ \hline W12 & 0.976 & 0.975 & 0.986 & H12 & 0.980 & 0.963 & 0.987 \\ \hline W13 & 0.939 & 0.998 & 0.999 & H13 & 0.994 & 0.982 & 0.995 \\ \hline W14 & 0.897 & 0.912 & 0.990 & H14 & 0.978 & 0.936 & 0.987 \\ \hline W15 & 0.710 & 0.985 & 0.980 & H15 & 0.999 & 0.958 & 0.989 \\ \hline W16 & 0.942 & 0.850 & 0.944 & H16 & 0.926 & 0.990 & 0.978 \\ \hline W21 & 0.868 & 0.831 & 0.955 & H21 & 0.999 & 0.995 & 0.977 \\ \hline W22 & 0.912 & 0.953 & 0.991 & H22 & 0.991 & 0.995 & 0.996 \\ \hline W23 & 0.998 & 0.949 & 0.993 & H23 & 0.995 & 0.818 & 0.995 \\ \hline W24 & 0.912 & 0.898 & 0.993 & H24 & 0.992 & 0.975 & 0.979 \\ \hline W25 & 0.973 & 0.938 & 0.958 & H25 & 0.990 & 0.949 & 0.993 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Intra-rater correlation coefficient based on measurements of tooth widths and heights.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Tooth** & **ICC Among Examiners** & **Tooth** & **ICC Among Examiners** \\ \hline W16 & 0.860 & H16 & 0.974 \\ \hline W21 & 0.909 & H21 & 0.998 \\ \hline W22 & 0.967 & H22 & 0.996 \\ \hline W23 & 0.980 & H23 & 0.896 \\ \hline W24 & 0.962 & H24 & 0.991 \\ \hline W25 & 0.851 & H25 & 0.981 \\ \hline W26 & 0.849 & H26 & 0.979 \\ \hline W31