ArticleHead & face medicine2024
Evaluating sagittal condylar inclination: a comparative analysis of various digital workflow measures.
Article in Head & face medicine, 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aims to compare sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) measurements derived from three workflows: intraoral scan (IOS) aligned with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), IOS aligned with facial scan (FS), and a jaw motion analyzer (JMA) system, in a cohort of young individuals with established normal occlusion. Additionally, the study aims to identify sources contributing to variance in these measurement approaches.
methodsTwenty-four healthy individuals exhibiting normal occlusion were enrolled in this clinical trial. The SCI was delineated using a virtual articulator (VA) by aligning IOS with both CBCT and FS, creating two distinct workflows labeled CBCT-IOS and FS-IOS, respectively. Concurrently, SCI measurements were also acquired using a JMA. The normality of data distribution for the difference in bilateral SCI measurements within each workflow was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Depending on the outcomes of this test, we utilized either a paired-sample T-test or Wilcoxon test for bilateral SCI comparisons. The inter-workflow differences were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis H test. Bland-Altman plots were assess the interchangeability and consistency across each pair of digital methods and to evaluate the aggregate consistency among the trio of digital approaches.
resultsThe analysis revealed that the CBCT-IOS workflow yielded the lowest average SCI measurements, whereas the JMA workflow produced the highest values. No significant differences were found in the SCI measurements between the left and right sides obtained by CBCT-IOS and JMA (P > .05), with the exception of the FS-IOS workflow (P = .002). Additionally, inter-flow comparisons revealed no significant differences in SCI measurements (P > .05), except when contrasting the SCI as measured by CBCT-IOS and JMA (P = .0131). The Bland-Altman plots demonstrated a high degree of consistency and 95% limits of agreement across the three digital workflows.
conclusionSCI measurements obtained from the three digital workflows exhibit a high degree of consistency and are interchangeable, affirming their clinical applicability for precise SCI assessment in young individuals with normal occlusion.
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.