ArticleBMC oral health2024
Reproducibility and reliability of dental arch measurements: comparing of manual, digital, and app-based methods.
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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel quantitative parameters for pediatric dental arch morphology in children aged 4-12 years.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Quantitative 3D Assessment of Iatrogenic Damage During Class II Cavity Preparations by Dental Students.International dental journal · 2026Article
- AI-enhanced 3D tooth movement forecasting in clear aligner therapy using deep morphometric modelling: A prospective validation study.Bioinformation · 2025Article
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
backgroundKnowing the available dental space in a patient is crucial for orthodontists to develop a good treatment plan.
objectivesTo compare and evaluate the reliability, reproducibility, and accuracy of three measurement methods on models: conventional, mobile app, and digital software. MATERIALS AND
methodsMaxillary and mandibular dental plaster models of 20 subjects with permanent dentition were analyzed. Three measurements were taken: manually using a digital caliper, using Nemocast 3D
resultsThe three methods measured each of the quadrants and each of the dental pieces similarly, with no significant differences found. Significant differences were found between the different measurement times in the manual and app ruler measurement groups. Intra-observer consistency was also observed through Pearson correlations. The measurement from the mobile app "Ruler" presented lower values compared to the other two models, especially with the measurements taken for each quadrant.
conclusionThe three methods used for measuring dentoskeletal discrepancy are similar in terms of results. However, Nemocast 3D software showed greater reproducibility and reliability compared to the other two methods presenting consistency in the results measured at both time points, which may be useful for our diagnoses.
trial registrationThe study was conducted according to the ethical standards set by the Declaration of Helsinki for Biomedical Research and the protocol was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the University of Salamanca with number 23/1074.
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.