ArticleBMC oral health2024
Virtual bracket removal: a comparative assessment of different software packages.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of two virtual bracket removal workflows for orthodontic retainer fabrication: surface replacement versus surface reconstruction.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Comparison of virtual treatment planning outcomes designed by two commercially available software in treatment of anterior teeth crowding using in-house aligners.BMC oral health · 2026Observational
- Comparison of three-dimensional tooth movements in virtual setups using different software packages for clear aligner therapy.BMC oral health · 2025Article
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
backgroundHigh precision intra-oral scans, coupled with advanced software, enable virtual bracket removal (VBR) from digital models. VBR allows the delivery of retainers and clear aligners promptly following debonding, thus reducing the patients' appointments and minimizing the likelihood of tooth movement. The objective of this study was to compare the enamel surface before bonding and after VBR using three different Computer-aided design (CAD) software and to compare their accuracy.
methodsMaxillary scans of 20 participants starting orthodontic treatment were selected for inclusion in the study, who exhibited mild to moderate crowding and required bonding of brackets on the labial surface of permanent maxillary teeth (from the maxillary left first molar to the maxillary right first molar). Two intra-oral scans were conducted on the same day, before bonding and immediately after bonding using CEREC Omnicam (Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany). The virtual removal of the brackets from the post-bonding models was performed using OrthoAnalyzer (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), Meshmixer (Autodesk, San Rafael, Calif, USA), and EasyRx (LLC, Atlanta, GA, USA) software. The models that underwent VBR were superimposed on the pre-bonding models by Medit Link App (Medit, Seoul, South Korea) using surface-based registration. The changes in the enamel surface following VBR using the three software packages were quantified using the Medit Link App.
resultsThere was a significant difference among the 3Shape, Meshmixer, and EasyRx software in tooth surface change following VBR. Specifically, EasyRx exhibited lower levels of accuracy compared to the other two VBR software programs (p<.001, p<.001). A significant difference in enamel surface change was observed between tooth segments across all software groups, in both incisors and molars, with VBR of the molars exhibiting the lowest level of accuracy (3Shape p=.002, Meshmixer p<.001, EasyRx p<.001). Regarding the direction of tooth surface changes following VBR, it was observed that all three groups exhibited a significant increase in the percentage of inadequate bracket removal across all teeth segments.
conclusions3Shape and Meshmixer manual VBR software were found to be more accurate than EasyRx automated software, however, the differences were minimal and clinically insignificant.
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.