ArticleBMC oral health2024
Does relative bracket base area affect the accuracy of reconstructed buccal surface in the virtual bracket removal technique?
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.
- Comparison of two virtual bracket removal workflows for orthodontic retainer fabrication: surface replacement versus surface reconstruction.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVirtual bracket removal (VBR) facilitates efficient retainer fabrication for fixed orthodontics in a digital workflow. This study is aimed at assessing the influence of the relative bracket base area (RBA), representing the proportion of the labial/buccal surface area intended for removal, on the surface reconstruction accuracy in the VBR technique.
methods196 teeth from seven resin dental models were included. The maximal bracket base surface area (MBA) was determined by the rectangular area extending to the lateral edges of the tooth labial/buccal surface. On each tooth, diverse RBA percentages (20-100% in 10% increments) of the MBA was removed, respectively. Following removal, the buccal surfaces of the teeth were digitally reconstructed. Subsequently, the root mean square (RMS) values, which represent the surface deviations between the reconstructed and original dentitions was calculated for each tooth. The obtained RMS values were compared within and among groups of different RBAs and compared with the clinically acceptable limit (CAL) of 0.05 mm.
resultsAs the RBA increased, there was a discernible trend of elevated RMS values, both for the overall dentition and each specific tooth type. Among the lower teeth, the molars consistently displayed the highest RMS values in almost all groups, with significantly higher mean/median RMS values compared to the lower incisors (P < 0.05), excluding the 0.2MBA group. Specifically, across all tooth types, the mean/median RMS values in groups with 20-80% MBA were significantly lower than CAL of 0.5 mm (P < 0.05). This trend persisted for all tooth types in the 0.9MBA group except the lower canines and molars.
conclusionThe mean/median RMS values elevated as the RBA increased. VBR technique remains sufficiently accurate for retainer fabrication, provided that the RBA remains below 80% of the MBA for lower canines and molars and 90% for all the other tooth types. Notably, residual bonding materials should be considered in clinical use because they are also removed in VBR and thereby constitute a portion of RBA.
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.