ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Evaluation of the accuracy of a simplified hybrid method versus the traditional digital method for measuring palatal volume.
Article 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. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare a direct conventional 3D digital technique vis a vis a hybrid method in measuring palatal volume. Materials and methods: Thirty maxillary casts were obtained from the records of patients undergoing orthodontic treatment and pre-conceived boundaries of the palatal vault were marked. Sample was categorised into Group I (Volume estimation using CBCT scan) and Group II (Volume estimation using hybrid method). Estimation of the palatal volume in this study involved filling the volume of interest in the palate with gypsum (Type IV) stone material and carefully carving according to the boundaries and anatomy. This positive reproduction of the palatal space was safely retrieved and then scanned in the NewTom GiANO HR Cone Beam Imaging setup. The obtained scan was analysed in NNT Software Version 3.10 and the volume of the palate was calculated. Two experienced orthodontists carried out the measurements to evaluate the inter and intra-observer reliability. This was compared with the palatal volume calculated by the conventional digital method using CBCT in the NNT Software. Result: This study showed a consistent and narrow range of the confidence interval for palatal volume. Hence, the sample size was sufficient and had good precision. Considering a 95 % confidence interval, the intra-class correlation coefficient was robust (>0.9) for all measurements calculated by the hybrid method suggesting a high reliability. The mean difference in measurement of palatal volume (Group I vs, Group II) was 1.37 + 0.64 mm3 and the difference was statistically insignificant. Statistical Conclusion: The hybrid method for evaluating the palatal volume is simple, accurate and comparable to the conventional digital method. A major advantage of this simplified method is that the patient is not exposed to any radiation of CBCT. Also, need for a specific skillset for digitally measuring the palatal volume is not a must.
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.