ArticleBMC oral health2024
The accuracy of anatomic landmarks on the occlusal plane: a comparative study between conventional and 3D image method.
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.
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
Abstract
backgroundTo establish the occlusal plane, the conventional methods for facial analysis to gain accurate alignment of the occlusal plane are inadequate, while 3D technologies are an ideal diagnostic tool. The aims of this research are to compare the difference accuracy of anatomic landmarks on the occlusal plane and ala-tragus line between the conventional clinical method and 3D image method in both non-orthodontic and orthodontic treatment volunteers.
methodsA total of 44 volunteers (22 non-orthodontic and 22 orthodontic treatment volunteers) with normal occlusion were selected. All volunteers received 2 operative methods for occlusal plane determination. In conventional method, the occlusal plane was defined by the fox plane line. The ala-tragus line was defined by the radio-opaque markers. In the 3D image method, the volunteers were recorded intraoral images, 3D facial images and CBCT images. A 3D virtual picture was created using EXOCAD® software. The occlusal plane was generated by the incisal and occlusal surfaces of the teeth. Both methods, the angles and distances between the occlusal plane and ala-tragus line were measured and compared statistically on both sides of each volunteer.
resultsBoth volunteers' group, the mean angles and distances between the occlusal plane-ala tragus line in the conventional method were reported to be significantly greater than the 3D method (P < 0.05). The percentage difference of angles in conventional method were reported to be significantly higher by 13.61-21.58% (p < 0.05) compared to the 3D method. The percentage difference of distances in the conventional method were reported to be significantly greater than the 3D method by 4.73-7.51% (p < 0.05).
conclusionsWithin the limitation of the study, it can be concluded that both conventional and digital methods for establishing the occlusal plane are not parallel to the occlusal plane. The occlusal plane and ala-tragus line in the conventional method and the 3D method were significantly different in terms of angles and distances in both non-orthodontic and orthodontic treatment volunteers. However, the deviation angle of both methods is approximately 13-20 degrees, which is clinically acceptable for occlusal plane establishment. The accuracy of both methods is still within the using in clinical implementation.
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.