ArticleBMC oral health2024
Evaluation of digital and manual orthodontic diagnostic setups in non-extraction cases using ABO model grading system: an in-vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. 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.
- Comparison of automated algorithm-based versus manual dental landmark placement for model analysis and evaluation of orthodontic quality indices.European journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Semi-automated evaluation of the American Board of Orthodontics electronic cast-radiograph evaluation for assessing orthodontic treatment outcome : Reliability and agreement.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2026Article
- Comparison between automated and manual digital diagnostic setups of orthodontic extraction cases: an in silico study.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Article
- Comparison of the Quality of Orthodontic Treatments Evaluated in Cast and Digital Models According to the ABO-OGS.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Expert consensus on orthodontic treatment of protrusive facial deformities.International journal of oral science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the outcome quality of manual and digital orthodontic diagnostic setups in non-extraction cases according to the American Board of Orthodontics model grading system and to calculate the laboratory time needed for orthodontic diagnostic setup construction.
methodsThe sample consisted of 60 pretreatment models of non-extraction orthodontic cases with age ranges of 18-30. The study models were duplicated and scanned with 3Shape R-750 scanner. Digital and manual diagnostic setups were constructed according to their respective treatment plans. Digital diagnostic setups were 3D printed and then both manual and digital setups were assessed using the modified American Board of Orthodontics Cast Radiograph evaluation score (ABO CRE), which includes alignment, marginal ridge, buccolingual inclination, occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, interproximal contacts, and overjet. The laboratory time needed for orthodontic setups was measured in minutes.
resultsThe total ABO CRE score of the digital diagnostic setup group (5.93 ± 2.74) was significantly lower than that of the manual diagnostic setup group (13.08 ± 3.25). The manual diagnostic setup had significantly larger scores in marginal ridge, overjet, overbite, buccolingual inclination, occlusal relationship, and total scores (P < 0.01). However, the digital diagnostic setup had a statistically larger occlusal contacts score than the manual diagnostic setup (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the alignment and the interproximal contacts scores in either group. The manual diagnostic setup needed significantly longer laboratory time (187.8 ± 14.22) than the digital setup (93.08 ± 12.65) (P < 0.01). Comparison between broken teeth was performed by using the chi-square test which found no significant difference between different tooth types.
conclusionsDigital diagnostic setup is a reliable tool for orthodontic diagnostic setup construction providing excellent quality setup models. Manual diagnostic setup is time consuming with a technique-sensitive laboratory procedure.
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.