ArticleMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2022
A Comparative Analysis of Dental Measurements in Physical and Digital Orthodontic Case Study Models.
Article in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practical Implications in Contemporary Dental Aesthetics-Shade Selection Assessment Using Intraoral Scanners.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- The role of artificial intelligence in diagnosing pediatric dental disorders-a narrative review.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Review
- Using AI in Optimizing Oral and Dental Diagnoses-A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The Efficacy of Diagnostic Plaster Models in Orthodontic Diagnosis and Treatment Planning.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Dentistry: A Multidisciplinary Approach.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Biopolymers and Their Application in Bioprinting Processes for Dental Tissue Engineering.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Experimental Study on Mechanical Properties of Different Resins Used in Oral Environments.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Study models are essential tools used in the dental teaching process. The aim of the present study was to compare the values obtained by manual and digital orthodontic measurements on physical and digital case study models. Materials and Methods: The physical experimental models were obtained by traditional pouring (improved stone-type IV gypsum products) and by additive manufacturing (resins). The digital experimental models were created by scanning the physical ones, using a white light-emitting diode (LED) source and an L-shaped dental scanner—Swing DOF (DOF, Seoul, Korea). The physical study models were first measured using a digital caliper, and then, they were scanned and evaluated using the DentalCad 3.0 Galway software (exocad GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany). The Pont, Linder−Harth, and Bolton indices, which are used in orthodontics for training students, were derived using the available data. Results: When comparing the linear measurement mean ranks taken on physical study models to those of digital models, no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were found. A similar result was also shown when the dentoalveolar growth indicators were analyzed. Conclusions: It can be concluded that dental study models made by direct light processing (DLP) and pouring type IV class gypsum are both acceptable for orthodontic teaching purposes.
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.