ArticleFrontiers in oral health2024
Palatal rugae assessment using plaster model and dental scan: a cross-sectional comparative analysis.
Article in Frontiers in 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.
- The oral fingerprint: rapid 3D comparison of palatal rugae for forensic identification.Frontiers in radiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Due to their consistent and individualistic patterns, palatal rugae (PR) are used in forensic dentistry as an ancillary method for personal identification. This study aimed to compare the impression of the PR obtained with the classic alginate impression and casting of the plaster model with the impression of the palate made with an intraoral scanner. Both impressions were compared with each other and with the photograph of the palatal rugae. Materials and methods: In this study, 19 patients (6 men, 13 women; mean age 28.6 years) were selected. Two different impressions were taken from the maxillae of the participants: a conventional impression using alginate impression material, and an optical impression using an intraoral scanner. The impressions obtained were compared with each other and with the photograph of the palatine rugae of each enrolled patient, using FaceComp™ software. The parameters assessed included absolute and relative distances, perimeters, areas, shape factors, and moments. The statistical analysis was conducted using Python 3.9. Results: The data from digital and plaster models were comparable across all six parameters used by the software. The coefficients of correlation and determination were strong to very strong for all six parameters assessed, with no statistically significant differences detected between the two methods of palatal rugae impression. Conclusion: Both digital and traditional methods were equally reliable in capturing palatal rugae patterns. The use of FaceComp™ software facilitated accurate comparison and personal identification through the alignment of the preidentified landmarks. Further studies are required to enhance the speed and precision of image acquisition and comparison for broader application in personal identification.
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.