ArticleClinical oral investigations2023
Effect of offset on the precision of 3D-printed orthognathic surgical splints.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A standardized protocol for clear aligner thickness measurement using a 3D-printed auxiliary device.The Angle orthodontist · 2026Article
- Evaluation of clear aligners as surgical splints in orthognathic surgery: A clinical study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensionally Printed Splints in Dentistry: A Comprehensive Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Intraoral Scanning Enables Virtual-Splint-Based Non-Invasive Registration Protocol for Maxillofacial Surgical Navigation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- 3D printing materials and 3D printed surgical devices in oral and maxillofacial surgery: design, workflow and effectiveness.Regenerative biomaterials · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated the effect of offset on the precision of three-dimensional (3D)-printed splints, proposing to optimize the splint design to compensate for systematic errors. MATERIALS AND
methods14 resin model sets were scanned and offset as a whole by given distances (0.05, 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30, 0.35, and 0.40 mm). Intermediate splints (ISs) and final splints (FSs) were generated from the non-offset and offset models and grouped correspondingly, named as splint type-offset value, IS-0.05, for instance. Dentitions occluded with the splint were scanned. Translational and rotational deviations of the lower dentition relative to the upper dentition were 3D measured.
resultsDeviations of ISs and FSs were more evident in the vertical and pitch dimensions, and were mostly acceptable in other dimensions. ISs with offset ≥ 0.05 mm showed vertical deviations significantly below 1 mm (P < 0.05) while ISs with 0.10- to 0.30-mm offsets had pitch rotations significantly lower than 1° (P < 0.05). The Pitch of IS-0.35 was significantly larger than ISs with 0.15- to 0.30-mm offsets (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, FSs fit better as the offset increased and FSs with offsets ≥ 0.15 mm all had deviations significantly lower than 1 mm (for translation) or 1° (for rotation) (P < 0.05).
conclusionsOffset affects the precision of 3D-printed splints. Moderate offset values of 0.10 to 0.30 mm are recommendable for ISs. Offset values ≥ 0.15 mm are recommended for FSs in cases with stable final occlusion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study found the optimal offset ranges for 3D-printed ISs and FSs via a standardized protocol.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37415046What 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.