ArticleHeliyon2022
Effect of defect size and tooth anatomy in the measurements of a 3D patient monitoring tool.
Article in Heliyon, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of crown and inlay size variations on the accuracy of various digital impression techniques.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Different Methods of Scan Alignment in Erosive Tooth Wear Measurements: An In Vitro Study.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- 3D quantitative analysis and SEM qualitative analysis of natural antagonist enamel opposing CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia or lithium disilicate tooth-supported crowns versus enamel opposing natural enamel.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2024Article
- Effect of the Abutment Rigidity on the Wear Resistance of a Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic: An In Vitro Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the influence of defect size and tooth anatomy on the measurements performed by a 3D patient monitoring tool. Methods: A fully dentate model was scanned to obtain a master digital file. Virtual duplicates received defects created in molars (16, 18, 28) and incisors (11, 12, 22), according to different depths (60, 80, 120 microns) and sizes (small, medium, large) totaling 180 conditions. The surface changes measured by the 3D Patient Monitoring Tool (3Shape TRIOS Patient Monitoring [TPM]) were compared with the reference by 2 calibrated operators. False Positives (FP), and False Negatives (FN) defect were registered. Pearson chi-square test, Multivariate binary logistic regression and Spearman rank correlation were used to evaluate the data (α = 0.05). Results: A significant association was found between the area and the presence of FP and FN (P < .01). Larger defects had higher chances to present FP or an FN respectively. There was a significant association between the tooth and the presence of a FP value (FP, P = .02; FN, P = .005) specially in molars. No significant association was found between the defect depth and the presence of a FP value. Spearman rank correlation showed a strong association between the presence of an FP and an FN (r = 0.858, P < .01). Conclusions: The defect size and tooth anatomy significantly affected the virtual follow-up, whereas defect depth did not. Small defects were correctly detected in all cases. An incorrect measurement on one side of the tooth simultaneously resulted in incorrect measurement on the opposite side. Clinical relevance: The clinician should be aware that different factors related to the characteristics of the defects could affect the quality of the full-arch digital follow-up. Therefore, caution is needed when interpreting the models comparison in cases that a larger area of a tooth has been modified.
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.