## 4 Discussion  
A diverse array of methods for evaluating tooth morphology is extensively documented in the orthodontic literature, reflecting the evolution of techniques and technologies in this field [4, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17]. In an early methodological approach, [PERSON] pioneered the study of vestibular crown morphology in the incisal-gingival dimension [15, 17]. This method involved the use of a template with circles of varying diameters, which were aligned against the tooth contour to gauge its morphology. While innovative for its time, this approach presents inherent limitations. Specifically, the labial/buccal tooth surfaces, with their complex curvatures and nuances, are not accurately represented by mere circular sections. This simplification could potentially lead to a loss of critical data, which is vital in orthodontic diagnostics and treatment planning. Building upon these early methods, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [10] introduced a more refined technique. They utilized photocopied, magnified, and meticulously trimmed plaster models of teeth. This method marked a significant step forward in terms of precision, as it allowed for a more detailed examination of tooth morphology. However, it is important to consider that the process of trimming these models might have introduced subtle alterations to the original shape of the measured teeth, thus potentially affecting the accuracy of the results. This highlights a recurring challenge in morphological studies: balancing the need for detailed representation with the preservation of the tooth's original form. In a more recent advancement, [PERSON] et al. [8] employed Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) to acquire detailed images of extracted teeth. This technology marked a significant leap forward in terms of imaging capabilities, offering a high level of accuracy with a 76 \(\upmu\)m resolution in the final image. The use of CBCT represents a paradigm shift in \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Source** & **Estimated** & **Estimated** & **\% of R\&R** & **\% of Total** \\ **(Expected MS)** & **Sigma** & **Variance** & & & \\ \hline Repeatability & 0.004873 & 0.000024 & 35.6186 & 0.4799 \\ Reproducibility (D) & 0.000000 & 0.000000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ Interaction (D \(\times\) T) & 0.006552 & 0.000043 & 64.3814 & 0.8674 \\ Part (T) & 0.069876 & 0.004883 & & 98.6528 \\ Combined R\&R & 0.008166 & 0.000067 & 100.0000 & 1.3472 \\ \hline Total & 0.070352 & 0.004949 & & 100.0000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} R\&R—repeatability and reproducibility; T—tooth; and D—doctor.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Variance analysis of measurements at 3 mm from incisal edge. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Source** & **Estimated** & **Estimated** & **\% of R\&R** & **\% of Total** \\ **(Expected MS)** & **Sigma** & **Variance** & & & \\ \hline Repeatability & 0.005123 & 0.000026 & 47.2973 & 0.3239 \\ Reproducibility (D) & 0.000463 & 0.000000 & 0.3861 & 0.0026 \\ Interaction D \(\times\) T & 0.005388 & 0.000029 & 52.3166 & 0.3582 \\ Part (T) & 0.089721 & 0.008050 & & 99.3153 \\ Combined R\&R & 0.007450 & 0.000056 & 100.0000 & 0.6847 \\ \hline Total & 0.090030 & 0.008105 & & 100.0000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} R\&R, repeatability and reproducibility; T, tooth; and D, doctor.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Variance analysis of measurements at 5 mm from incisal edge. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **12** & **11** & **21** & **22** \\ \hline \(\alpha\)3 & M \(\pm\) SD & \(-1.4^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 3.6\({}^{\circ}\) & \(0.6^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 3.5\({}^{\circ}\) & \(1.4^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 4.3\({}^{\circ}\) & \(-0.7^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 4.1\({}^{\circ}\) \\ \(\alpha\)5 & M \(\pm\) SD & \(3.5^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 3.0\({}^{\circ}\) & \(1 dental imaging, providing three-dimensional data and unparalleled detail, which is crucial for comprehensive morphological analysis. However, it is essential to note that even this advanced technology does not match the precision achieved by the latest intraoral scanners.