Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36561666›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2022

Effect of defect size and tooth anatomy in the measurements of a 3D patient monitoring tool.

Beatriz Gimenez-Gonzalez, Christof Setyo, Mikel Gomez Picaza, João Paulo Mendes Tribst

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Beatriz Gimenez-GonzalezDepartment of Implantology and Prosthetic Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Universiteit van Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 LA Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Christof SetyoDepartment of Implantology and Prosthetic Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Universiteit van Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 LA Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Mikel Gomez PicazaCreatech Medical, Polígono Kurutz-Gain Pabellón, 3B 20850 Mendaro, Spain.
João Paulo Mendes TribstDepartment of Oral Regenarative Medicine, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Universiteit van Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 LA Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Complete archIntraoral scannersOptical impressionPrecision

Identifiers

PMID36561666
PMCPMC9763733
OpenAlexW4310794450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.