ArticleBMC oral health2024
Establishment of a 3D esthetic analysis workflow on 3D virtual patient and preliminary evaluation.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn esthetic dentistry, a thorough esthetic analysis holds significant role in both diagnosing diseases and designing treatment plans. This study established a 3D esthetic analysis workflow based on 3D facial and dental models, and aimed to provide an imperative foundation for the artificial intelligent 3D analysis in future esthetic dentistry.
methodsThe established 3D esthetic analysis workflow includes the following steps: 1) key point detection, 2) coordinate system redetermination and 3) esthetic parameter calculation. The accuracy and reproducibility of this established workflow were evaluated by a self-controlled experiment (n = 15) in which 2D esthetic analysis and direct measurement were taken as control. Measurement differences between 3D and 2D analysis were evaluated with paired t-tests.
results3D esthetic analysis demonstrated high consistency and reliability (0.973 < ICC < 1.000). Compared with 2D measurements, the results from 3D esthetic measurements were closer to direct measurements regarding tooth-related esthetic parameters (P<0.05).
conclusionsThe 3D esthetic analysis workflow established for 3D virtual patients demonstrated a high level of consistency and reliability, better than 2D measurements in the precision of tooth-related parameter analysis. These findings indicate a highly promising outlook for achieving an objective, precise, and efficient esthetic analysis in the future, which is expected to result in a more streamlined and user-friendly digital design process. This study was registered with the Ethics Committee of Peking University School of Stomatology in September 2021 with the registration number PKUSSIRB-202168136.
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.