ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2022
Accuracy of three-dimensional printed models derived from cone-beam computed tomography.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Low-Dose, Standard-Dose, and High-Definition CBCT Protocols for STL Reconstruction Accuracy in Digital Bone Scaffold Workflows.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Effect of simulated root canal morphology and post space depth on fracture performance of glass fiber-reinforced post-core buildups.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Quality assurance of 3D-printed patient specific anatomical models: a systematic review.3D printing in medicine · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Applications of Intraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review.Journal of imaging · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) printed models fabricated from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of human mandibular dry skulls in comparison with models derived from intraoral scanner (IOS) data. MATERIALS AND
methodsSix human mandibular dry skulls were scanned by IOS and CBCT. Digital models (DMs) constructed from the IOS and CBCT data were fabricated physically using a 3D printer. The width and thickness of individual teeth and intercanine and molar widths were measured using a digital caliper. The accuracy of the DMs was compared between IOS and CBCT. Paired t-tests were used for intergroup comparisons.
resultsAll intraclass correlation coefficient values for the three measurements (mesial-distal, buccal-lingual, width) exceeded 0.9. For the mandibular teeth, there were significant discrepancies in model accuracy between the IOS (average discrepancies of 0.18 ± 0.08 mm and 0.16 ± 0.12 mm for width and thickness, respectively) and CBCT (0.28 ± 0.07 mm for width, 0.37 ± 0.2 mm for thickness; P < .01). Intercanine (P = .38) and molar widths (P = .41) showed no significant difference between groups.
conclusionsThere was a statistically significant difference in the accuracy of DMs obtained from CBCT and IOS; however, this did not seem to result in any important clinical difference. CBCT could be routinely used as an orthodontic diagnostic tool and for appliance construction.
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.