Felter Matheus, Lenza Milena Moraes de Oliveira, Lenza Maurício Guilherme, Shibazaki Wendel Minoro Muniz, Silva Rhonan Ferreira
School of Dentistry, Federal University of Goias, Goiânia, Goias, Brazil.
Orthodontist, Master in Dentistry, Goiânia, Goias, Brazil.
J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2018 Summer;12(3):213-220. doi: 10.15171/joddd.2018.033. Epub 2018 Sep 18.
Software programs for visualization and analysis of digital orthodontic models, apart from presenting the necessary features for diagnosis and treatment planning, also need to be user-friendly. This characteristic refers to software' usability, a measure that evaluates how easy it is to use it is by a specific group of professionals. The aim of this study was to compare the usability of free available versions of two software programs for visualization and analysis of digital orthodontic models. Digimodel® and OrthoCAD® usability were evaluated through their interface analysis and executing the following procedures: malocclusion classification and models analysis (arch-length and tooth-size discrepancies). Digimodel® and OrthoCAD® software programs had an installer only for Windows platform, occupied less than 110 megabytes of virtual space and only read files from their respective manufacturers. None possessed Portuguese as a language option. Both allowed visualization of the models in different axes through options present in initial screen, at a click. For model analysis, both software programs required to measure tooth to tooth and performed necessary calculations automatically. However, OrthoCAD® software program was less intuitive because the option for these actions was among several others, within menus, which could cause confusion during navigation. In addition, the marking of points did not always obey the clicked site. The free access version of the evaluated software programs exhibited usability limitations related to language, supported file format and even the model analysis execution for orthodontic diagnosis. Although OrthoCAD® was inferior, both did not meet orthodontists' clinical demand against these factors in the evaluated versions.
用于数字正畸模型可视化和分析的软件程序，除了具备诊断和治疗计划所需的功能外，还需要用户友好。这一特性指的是软件的可用性，即衡量特定专业人员使用该软件的难易程度的指标。本研究的目的是比较两款用于数字正畸模型可视化和分析的免费软件版本的可用性。通过界面分析和执行以下程序对Digimodel®和OrthoCAD®的可用性进行评估：错牙合分类和模型分析（牙弓长度和牙齿大小差异）。Digimodel®和OrthoCAD®软件程序仅适用于Windows平台的安装程序占用虚拟空间不到110兆字节，且仅读取各自制造商的文件。两者均没有葡萄牙语作为语言选项。两者都可以通过初始屏幕中的选项在点击一下后在不同轴向上可视化模型。对于模型分析，两款软件程序都需要测量牙齿间距离并自动执行必要的计算。然而，OrthoCAD®软件程序不太直观，因为这些操作的选项在菜单中的其他几个选项之中，这可能会在导航过程中造成混淆。此外，点的标记并不总是遵循点击的位置。所评估软件程序的免费访问版本在语言、支持的文件格式甚至正畸诊断的模型分析执行方面都存在可用性限制。尽管OrthoCAD®较差，但在评估版本中，两者在这些因素方面均未满足正畸医生的临床需求。
