## 4 Discussion
recorded no significant differences in the average discrepancies of overbite and overjet values between the two methods for both measurers [14]. Similar deviations were also confirmed in the study by [PERSON] et al. [15]. In contrast, [PERSON] et al. reported that the discrepancies in overbite values measured using digital models and plaster models were 0.31 mm and 0.2 mm, respectively, with only the overbite showing a significant difference (\(p<0.05\)) [16]. [PERSON] et al. reported that the average difference in overjet was not statistically significant; however, there was a difference in overbite, with an average discrepancy of 0.30 mm (\(p=0.001\)) [17]. [PERSON] et al. reported that there was no difference in measurements of tooth heights and widths between plaster and digital models (\(p=0.852\) and an average discrepancy of 0.1 mm) [18]. [PERSON] et al. compared the accuracy of clinical measurements using plaster models and digital models with 3 Shape. They found that the anterior ratio and overall ratio showed statistically significant differences (anterior ratio, \(p=0.021\); overall ratio, \(p=0.001\)) [19]. [PERSON] et al. reported this error, showing that the anterior ratio and overall ratio in Bolton analysis measured by intraoral digital evaluation were smaller than with conventional plaster methods (\(p<0.05\)). However, the authors believed this was not clinically significant [20]. The results showed excellent reliability among different examiners and for repeated measurements by each examiner. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. reported an ICC value of 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.07 for digital models. Only the mesio-distal dimension of the lower-right central incisor had an ICC value at the moderate level, while the reliability of the remaining mesio-distal measurements ranged from good to excellent [16]. [PERSON] et al. demonstrated that the ICC values for digital methods were excellent (ICC values \(>0.95\)) [21]. The reliability of mesio-distal tooth measurements can be affected by various variables, including inclination, rotation, contact between teeth, and anatomical differences. However, since the measurers had expertise in digital manipulation, computer mouse operation, and working with images on a screen, the results were predictable. Most of the results did not show statistically significant differences in dental measurements of two models due to several reasons. This may be because three examiners had experience and received standardized training in measuring tooth and dental-arch dimensions. Training time with new software and experience significantly affect measurement results. [PERSON] et al. compared the accuracy and reliability of measurements on computer-based digital models from ten examiners. The results showed significant differences for all measured indices across ten pairs of models for the data from ten examiners. The average difference between the two measurement methods for the ten measurers ranged from 0.19 to 1.9 mm [22]. Plaster models were constructed by standardized high-quality materials and used immediately after making. [PERSON] et al. reported that, when taking impressions and measurements on plaster models, data discrepancies can occur due to the shrinkage or expansion of the models during storage and transportation. Depending on the storage environment after plaster removal, the impression material may undergo synthesis or absorption. Generally, material shrinkage due to water loss or synthesis means that measurement points will be farther apart, while water absorption or swelling will cause the material to expand [23]. Additionally, the CEREC Primescan system is the latest updated system, featuring ease of use and new algorithms that produce relatively accurate results by overcoming the drawbacks of previous versions. One of the key strengths of this study is its methodological rigor, including the use of standardized measurement procedures and a well-established statistical analysis framework.