ArticleBMC oral health2019
Deviations in palatal region between indirect and direct digital models: an in vivo study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- 3D Scanners in Orthodontics-Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives-A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- In vitro evaluation of the impact of intraoral scanner, scanning aids, and the scanned arch on the scan accuracy of edentulous arches.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026Article
- Palatal Morphology After Treatment of Children With Obstructive Sleep Apnoea Using the Modified Twin-Block Appliance.International dental journal · 2024Article
- A Systematic Review of the Use of Intraoral Scanning for Human Identification Based on Palatal Morphology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Does the palatal vault form have an influence on the scan time and accuracy of intraoral scans of completely edentulous arches? AnThe journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2022Article
- Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria.BMC oral health · 2022Article
- Intraoral scanners for capturing the palate and its relation to the dentition.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- CBCT and Intra-Oral Scanner: The Advantages of 3D Technologies in Orthodontic Treatment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Accuracy and reliability of maxillary digital model (MDM) superimposition in evaluating teeth movement in adults compared with CBCT maxillary superimposition.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Application of intraoral scanner to identify monozygotic twins.BMC oral health · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the accuracy of a simplified hybrid method versus the traditional digital method for measuring palatal volume.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies focusing on accuracy of intraoral digital models in the palatal region are scarce. The present study aimed to investigate the influence of different scanning sequences on palatal trueness and to assess deviation and distribution character of trueness in palate.
methodsOverall, 35 participants accepted three types of procedures to acquire upper digital models. Indirect models digitalised from plaster models were considered as the reference. Two direct digital models were acquired using TRIOS 3 POD intraoral scanners, namely Groups Tr1 and Tr2, wherein intraoral scanning differed in terms of palatal scanning sequences. Based on a modified dental-level superimposition method, 3D measurements of trueness in palate and palatal vault region (PVR) for palatal stable regional superimposition in Groups Tr1 and Tr2, respectively, were performed. Absolute deviations were measured for trueness, while signed deviations were analysed for shape distortion. Colour-coded maps were used for quantitative analysis of deviation distribution pattern. Paired t test was used to analyse differences in palatal trueness between different scanning sequences. One-way repeated-measures analysis of variance and Bonferroni test were used to compare trueness measurements among different superimposition methods. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to verify reproducibility of the proposed method.
resultsPalatal trueness in Group Tr1 (118.59 ± 37.67 μm) was slightly less accurate than that (108.25 ± 33.83 μm) in Group Tr2 (p = 0.012 < 0.05). Trueness of PVR in Groups Tr1 (127.35 ± 54.11 μm) and Tr2 (118.17 ± 49.52 μm) did not differ significantly (p = 0.149). Moreover, no significant difference was noted in distortion of the palatal region and PVR in Groups Tr1 and Tr2 (p = 0.582 and 0.615, respectively). A similar pattern of palatal trueness was noted in a majority of participants (22/35). For 3D palatal trueness measurement, there were different applications for different superimposition methods. ICC for the proposed method was > 0.90.
conclusionsScanning sequences can affect palatal trueness. Palatal scanning should be initiated at the palatal side of the posterior teeth where the initial scan begins. For 3D PVR superimposition, distal boundary of the selected region should be adjusted mesially whilst referring to intraoral digital models.
trial registrationThe trial has been registered (registration No: R000039467 , Trial ID: UMIN000034617, date of registration: 2018/10/24'retrospectively registered').
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.