## 3 Results  
The results of intrarater reliability for the primary investigator, assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) showed repeated measurements with excellent agreement ICC \(\geq\) 90 for all sections evaluated in discrepancy index except for the Buccal posterior crossbite section that was determined digitally (Table 2). Regarding interrater reliability, an excellent agreement was observed between the first and the second reviewer for all manual and digital sections of the discrepancy index, except for the Buccal posterior crossbite digital measurement (Table 3). The final score discrepancy index scores were classified as follows: mild (1-10), moderate (11-20), complex (21-30) and very complex (+31) according to the American Board of Orthodontics, clinical examination guide [14,15]. Table 5 shows the final discrepancy index score categorizations that were obtained using digital versus manual techniques for the 28 cases that were analyzed in this study. Discrepancies were observed for only one case. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Category** & **Mean (SD) PR1** & **Mean (SD) PR2** & **CI 95\% IL** & **CI 95\% SL** & **Ca** & **ICC** \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Manual Technique} \\ \hline Overjet & 2.57 (1.39) & 2.71 (1.38) & 0.903 & 0.997 & 0.981 & 0.981 * \\ Overbite & 1.43 (1.39) & 1.29 (1.38) & 0.903 & 0.997 & 0.981 & 0.981 * \\ Anterior open bite & 1.57 (3.04) & 1.43 (2.99) & 0.980 & 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 (2.00) & 0.955 & 0.998 & 0.991 & 0.991 * \\ Occlusal relationship & 2.57 (1.90) & 2.43 (1.61) & 0.941 & 0.998 & 0.988 & 0.988 * \\ Lingual posterior crossbite & 1.29 (1.49) & 1.43 (1.61) & 0.924 & 0.997 & 0.985 & 0.985 * \\ Buccal posterior crossbite & 0.29 (0.75) & 0.43 (1.13) & 0.795 & 0.993 & 0.960 & 0.960 * \\ Cephalometrics & 11.57 (9.65) & 11.29 (9.23) & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 0.999 * \\ Other & 4.29 (3.20) & 4.14 (3.07) & 0.981 & 0.999 & 0.996 & 0.996 * \\ Final discrepancy index score & 29.29 (14.45) & 28.57 (13.90) & 0.988 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 0.998 * \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Digital Technique} \\ \hline Overjet & 3.14 (1.95) & 2.86 (1.67) & 0.951 & 0.876 & 0.996 & 0.978 * \\ Overbite & 1.00 (1.29) & 1.14 (1.46) & 0.902 & 0.997 & 0.981 & 0.981 * \\ Anterior open bite & 1.00 (1.91) & 0.86 (1.57) & 0.940 & 0.998 & 0.988 & 0.988 * \\ Lateral open bite & 0.57 (1.51) & 0.71 (1.89) & 0.937 & 0.998 & 0.988 & 0.988 * \\ Crowding & 3.14 (2.03) & 3.00 (2.00) & 0.955 & 0.998 & 0.991 & 0.991 * \\ Occlusal relationship & 2.29 (1.79) & 2.43 (1.81) & 0.943 & 0.998 & 0.989 & 0.989 * \\ Lingual posterior crossbite & 1.14 (1.21) & 1.29 (1.38) & 0.890 & 0.996 & 0.978 & 0.978 * \\ Buccal posterior crossbite & 0.14 (0.378) & 0.29 (0.756) & 0.430 & 0.980 & 0.889 & 0.889 \\ Cephalometrics & 10.43 (9.41) & 10.29 (9.26) & 0.998 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 * \\ Other & 3.43 (3.15) & 3.29 (3.09) & 0.981 & 0.999 & 0.996 & 0.996 * \\ Final discrepancy index score & 26.99 (16.22) & 26.14 (15.76) & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 0.999 * \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{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, PR1: primary review first measurement PR2: primary review two weeks later.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Intrarater reliability test. The analyzed data showed a normal distribution using the Shapiro-Wilk test (Table 4), and accordingly, the data were analyzed using parametric statistical tests. To determine the categorical concordance of the different measurement techniques (digital and manual), the cases were grouped into two categories: simple treatment (mild and moderate) and complex treatment (complex and very complex). The 28 case studies included 12 simple and 16 complex cases (Table 5).