## 3 Results
High reliability was demonstrated by the Cohen kappa index, with a \(p\) value of 0.001 and a kappa value of 1.00, which corresponds to almost perfect agreement (0.80-1.00) according to the Landis and Koch scale. Table 6 shows the average, standard deviation and Student's \(t\)-test results for the final discrepancy index scores obtained digitally and manually and for the different sections \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Statistic** & **Freedom Degree** & \(p\)**Value** \\ \hline
0.162 & 28 & 0.098 \\
0.094 & 28 & 0.084 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Shapiro-Wilk normality test. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Category** & **Mean (SD) PR** & **Mean (SD) R2** & **CI 95\% IL** & **CI 95\% SL** & **Ca** & **ICC** \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Manual Technique} \\ \hline Overjet & 2.57 (1.39) & 2.29 (1.25) & 0.769 & 0.993 & 0.965 & 0.958 * \\ Overbite & 1.43 (1.39) & 1.57 (1.61) & 0.919 & 0.997 & 0.984 & 0.984 * \\ Anterior open bite & 1.57 (3.04) & 1.43 (2.69) & 0.978 & 0.999 & 0.996 & 0.996 * \\ Lateral open bite & 0.57 (1.51) & 0.43 (1.13) & 0.896 & 0.996 & 0.980 & 0.980 * \\ Crowding & 3.14 (2.03) & 3.00 (1.63) & 0.819 & 0.994 & 0.967 & 0.964 * \\ Occlusal relationship & 2.57 (1.90) & 2.57 (1.61) & 0.860 & 0.996 & 0.973 & 0.976 * \\ Lingual posterior crossbite & 1.29 (1.49) & 1.14 (1.21) & 0.900 & 0.997 & 0.980 & 0.980 * \\ Buccal posterior crossbite & 0.29 (0.75) & 0.43 (1.13) & 0.795 & 0.993 & 0.960 & 0.960 * \\ Cephalometrics & 11.57 (9.65) & 11.57 (9.05) & 0.986 & 1.000 & 0.997 & 0.998 * \\ Other & 4.29 (3.20) & 4.00 (3.16) & 0.959 & 0.999 & 0.994 & 0.993 * \\ Final discrepancy index score & 29.29 (14.45) & 28.14 (13.85) & 0.966 & 0.999 & 0.998 & 0.996 * \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Digital Technique} \\ \hline Overjet & 3.14 (1.95) & 3.00 (1.91) & 0.951 & 0.998 & 0.990 & 0.990 * \\ Overbite & 1.00 (1.29) & 1.14 (1.57) & 0.910 & 0.997 & 0.982 & 0.982 * \\ Anterior open bite & 1.00 (1.91) & 1.14 (2.03) & 0.953 & 0.998 & 0.991 & 0.991 * \\ Lateral open bite & 0.57 (1.51) & 0.71 (1.89) & 0.937 & 0.998 & 0.988 * \\ Crowding & 3.14 (2.03) & 3.14 (1.67) & 0.875 & 0.996 & 0.975 & 0.979 * \\ Occlusal relationship & 2.29 (1.79) & 2.29 (1.49) & 0.839 & 0.995 & 0.969 & 0.973 * \\ Lingual posterior crossbite & 1.14 (1.21) & 1.14 (1.21) & 0.686 & 0.991 & 0.940 & 0.948 * \\ Buccal posterior crossbite & 0.14 (0.37) & 0.29 (0.75) & 0.430 & 0.980 & 0.889 & 0.889 \\ Cephalometrics & 10.43 (9.41) & 10.43 (9.64) & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 0.999 * \\ Other & 3.43 (3.15) & 3.43 (3.20) & 0.958 & 0.999 & 0.992 & 0.993 * \\ Final discrepancy index score & 26.99 (16.22) & 26.71 (16.03) & 0.996 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient, SD: standard deviation, CI: 95% confidence interval, IL: inferior limit, SL superior limit, Ca: Cronbach’s alpha, *: CIC \(\geq\) 0.90 corresponding to an excellent reliability, PR: primary review first measurement R2: second reviewer 2.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Interrater reliability test. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Category** & **Digital Measurement** & **Manual Measurement** \\ \hline Mild (S) & \(5\) (17.9\%) & \(5\) (17.8\%) \\ Moderate (S) & \(7\) (25.0\%) & \(7\) (25.0\%) \\ Complex (C) & \(9\) (32.1\%) & \(8\) (28.6\%) \\ Very complex (C) & \(7\) (25.0\%) & \(8\) (28.6\%) \\ Total & \(12\)(S) + \(16\)(C) = \(28\) (100\%) & \(12\)(S) + \(16\)(C) = \(28\) (100\%) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} (S): simple treatment, (C): complex treatment.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Categorization of the discrepancy index according to complexity. that comprise the index. No statistically significant differences between the digital and manual approaches were observed for either the discrepancy index or any of the sections that comprise it; consequently, both techniques yielded very similar results. The Bland-Altman method was used to determine the agreement between continuous measurements obtained by digital and manual techniques.