ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2024
Evaluating the precision and accuracy of digital dental models with a low-cost structured light device.
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated the accuracy and precision of digital models acquisition using a home-built, low-cost scanning system based on the structured light method.
methodsa plaster model (PM) was scanned using the experimental device (SL) and a dental desktop scanner (DS). The teeth dimensions of PM and SL models were measured in triplicate, with a caliper and digitally, respectively. The agreement of the measurements of each model was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient, and the validity between the different measurement techniques was assessed using the Bland-Altman analysis. The accuracy and precision of the models were qualitatively investigated using the mesh superposition of the SL and DS models.
resultsA high intraclass correlation coefficient was observed in all models (PM=0.964; SL1=0.998; SL2=0.995; SL3=0.998), and there was no statistical difference between the measurements of the SL models (p>0.05). PM and SL model measurements were found to be in good agreement, with only 3.57% of the observed differences between the same measurement being located outside 95% limits of agreement according to Bland and Altman (0.43 and -0.40 mm). In the superimpositions of SL-SL and SL-DS models, areas of discrepancy greater than 0.5 mm were observed mainly in interproximal, occlusal, and cervical sites.
conclusionThese results indicate that the home-built SL scanning system did not possess sufficient accuracy and precision for many clinical applications. However, the consistency in preserving the dental proportions suggests that the equipment can be used for planning, storage, and simple clinical purposes.
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.