ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2024
The Accuracy of the CBCT-Based 3-Dimensional Replica of the Donor Tooth in Autotransplantation.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated the accuracy of the CBCT reconstruction model compared to the natural tooth and the accuracy of the replica tooth compared to the natural tooth.
objectiveThe hypothesis was that a replica tooth could be used as a surgical guide in autotransplantation.
methodsThree teeth were chosen and a CBCT reconstruction model was formed from each tooth. STL-data was transferred to a milling machine and replica teeth were milled from PEEK. A digitized surface model was prepared from the natural and the replica teeth by a stereophotogrammetry scanner. The surface model from the optical scan of the natural tooth was compared to the CBCT reconstruction model and the surface model of the replica tooth. The models were matched on each other, and surface-based rigid registration was performed between the surface models. Distances were calculated and visualized by MATLAB.
resultsThe CBCT reconstruction model and the natural tooth were compared. The largest euclidean distance was found at the root tip in the premolar (0.93 mm) and at the furcation area in the molar (2.3 mm). When the natural tooth and the replica tooth were compared, the largest euclidean distance was found at the root tip in the premolar (1.5 mm) and at the furcation area in the molar (1.9 mm).
conclusionA CBCT scan maintains sufficient image quality for tooth autotransplantation planning. The replica tooth corresponded in size and shape to the natural tooth in terms of clinically expected need of precision.
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.