Introduction : This study evaluated whether CBCT-free registration of facial scans (FS) and intraoral scans (IOS) can clinically approximate a conventional CBCT- anchored workflow. Twenty-three orthodontic patients with same-day CBCT, facial scans, an...
Introduction : This study evaluated whether CBCT-free registration of facial scans (FS) and intraoral scans (IOS) can clinically approximate a conventional CBCT- anchored workflow. Twenty-three orthodontic patients with same-day CBCT, facial scans, and IOS were analyzed. Methods : Two conditions were compared: (1) CBCT-free integration of smile/rest facial scans and IOS using the RAYFace system, and (2) CBCT-anchored integration of CBCT, IOS, and facial scans using R2Gate with three-point matching and coordinate definition from the midpalatal suture and Frankfort horizontal plane. All data were transferred to CloudCompare. The CBCT-based model served as the reference; the CBCT-free model was rigidly aligned, and the resulting 4×4 transformation matrix was used to extract rotations (pitch, yaw, roll) and translations (X, Y, Z). Linear deviations at the maxillary central incisor contact point and the mesiobuccal cusps of #16 and #26 were also calculated. Result : No systematic directional bias was observed between workflows. However, the absolute residual differences were not negligible. Pitch showed the greatest rotational deviation (≈1.4°), and vertical translation showed the greatest linear deviation (≈0.7 mm). Tooth-level discrepancies were ≈0.95 mm anteriorly and ≈1.2 mm posteriorly. Conclusion : These findings indicate that a CBCT-free “virtual patient” workflow can achieve approximately 1 mm anterior agreement but is limited by pitch-dominant error and larger posterior discrepancies.