ReviewJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Evaluation of efficacy of digital or virtual bite registration over conventional techniques- A systematic review.
Review in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bite registration procedures have been transformed by the digital revolution in dentistry, thus it is now necessary to compare the accuracy of digital or virtual techniques to conventional ones. Aim: To assess the accuracy of digital or virtual bite registration systems in comparison to conventional methods to clarify any potential advantages or disadvantages. Methodology: A thorough search in numerous databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science, was carried out in accordance with PRISMA criteria. The review focused on the accuracy of digital or virtual bite registration and covered a variety of study formats, including randomized controlled trials, clinical studies, and in-vitro investigations. For each of the included 7 studies, a thorough assessment of bias was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. As there would be expected variability in study designs, data synthesis required both a narrative explanation of the results and a qualitative synthesis. Results: This systematic review compared 7 studies on traditional bite registration methods versus digital/virtual techniques. Digital techniques highlighted improved efficiency and innovation with increased speed, accuracy, and integration advantages. Evaluations performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and ROBINS-I tool showed little bias in cross-sectional studies. Nevertheless, in vitro studies have identified biases in participant selection and result reporting, indicating a need for better study rigor and reporting standards. A study received a noteworthy 8 out of 9 score on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, indicating strong methodology with careful sample selection, solid comparability, and comprehensive outcome evaluation, enhancing its credibility in assessing bite registration techniques. Conclusion: The benefits of digital/virtual bite registration methods over traditional ones are demonstrated in this systematic review, which also shows how these methods improve speed, accuracy, and integration. Although some studies have shown biases, overall results support the validity and efficiency of digital techniques in improving dental practice.
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.