Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37460998›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2023

Accuracy of digital workflow for placing orthodontic miniscrews using generic and licensed open systems. A 3d imaging analysis of non-native .stl files for guided protocols.

Vincenzo Ronsivalle, Pietro Venezia, Orazio Bennici, Vincenzo D'Antò, Rosalia Leonardi, Antonino Lo Giudice

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Use of CBCT in Orthodontics: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors.

Vincenzo RonsivalleDepartment of General Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, Via Santa Sofia 78, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Pietro VeneziaDepartment of General Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, Via Santa Sofia 78, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Orazio BenniciDepartment of General Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, Via Santa Sofia 78, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Vincenzo D'AntòOrthodontic Graduate Program, University of Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Rosalia LeonardiDepartment of General Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, Via Santa Sofia 78, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Antonino Lo GiudiceDepartment of General Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, Via Santa Sofia 78, University of Catania, Catania, Italy. antonino.logiudice@unict.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to assess the accuracy of digital workflow for guided insertion of miniscrews in the anterior palate using restorative implant dentistry software and licensed software for orthodontic applications.

methodsTwenty subjects (8 males, 12 females, mean age = 16.7 ± 2.1 years) were prospectively selected to receive guided insertion of bicortical palatal miniscrews. Virtual planning was performed using restorative implant dentistry software (Blue Sky Plan*, version 4.7) (group 1 = 10 subjects) and licensed orthodontic software (Dolphin Imaging Software, version 11.0) (group 2 = 10 subjects). A specific 3D Imaging technology was applied to permit the registration of the planned and achieved position of the miniscrews based on the superimposition of maxillary models. The angular deviation (accuracy error) between the planned and the achieved positions of the miniscrews were recorded. Independent Student's test was used with statistical significance set at p value < 0.05.

resultsThe mean accuracy error recorded in group 1 was 7.15° ± 1.09 (right side) and 6.19 ± 0.80 (left side) while the mean error in group 2 was 6.74° ± 1.23 (right side) and 5.79 ± 0.95 (left side). No significant differences were recorded between the two groups (p > 0.05); instead, miniscrews placed on the right side were almost one degree higher than the left side (p < 0.05) in both groups.

conclusionsThe clinical accuracy error was similar when using generic and licensed orthodontic software for guided systems.

Indexed as

Imaging, Three-DimensionalOrthodontic Anchorage ProceduresAnimalsDentistryFemaleMalePalateWorkflowDigital dentistryDigital orthodonticsDigital planning skeletal anchorageTADs

Identifiers

PMID37460998
PMCPMC10353103

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.