ArticleBMC research notes2024
Reliability of mixed dentition space analysis using a digital model obtained from an optical impression: a preliminary study.
Article in BMC research notes, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conventional vs. 3D printed band and loop space maintainers: a fracture strength analysis.3D printing in medicine · 2025Article
- Esthetic Management in Geminated and Supernumerary Maxillary Incisor Teeth With a Conservative Interdisciplinary Approach.Case reports in dentistry · 2025Article
- Reproducibility and reliability of dental arch measurements: comparing of manual, digital, and app-based methods.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Accuracy Analysis of Digital Models from Intraoral Scanners and 3D-Printed Casts in Children and Teenagers.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWhile mixed dentition space analysis is a common practice in pediatric dentistry, digital models created using an intraoral scanner are not as widely used in clinical settings. This preliminary study used a very small sample size with one reference model and aimed to (1) compare the accuracy of mixed dentition space analysis using a digital model obtained from an optical impression with that of conventional plaster model-based analysis and (2) assess inter-examiner differences.
resultsThe space required for the mandibular permanent canine and premolars and arch length discrepancy were calculated using each model. The largest significant difference between plaster- and digital model-based analyses was identified when the right arch length discrepancy was considered (-0.49 mm; 95% confidence interval: -0.95-0.03); however, the value was considered clinically insignificant. Significant inter-examiner differences were observed for six items of the plaster model; however, no such differences were observed when using the digital model. In conclusion, digital model space analysis may have the same level of accuracy as conventional plaster model analysis and likely results in smaller inter-examiner differences than plaster model analysis.
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.