ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2025
Predicted and final tooth position assessment following indirect bonding planned by a digital system.
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 2025. 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
introductionThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement between the predicted and the achieved tooth position planned by an orthodontic digital system.
methodsDigital models of the setup (Predicted) and the treated (Treated) groups of 23 subjects with Class I malocclusion were obtained. Digital models (Predicted and Treated) of each patient were superimposed, and referential geometric planes were constructed for linear and angular measurements: arch perimeter, arch depth, intercanine and intermolar widths, mesiodistal crown angulation, and buccolingual crown inclination. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to establish the agreement between the measurements. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between groups.
resultsCompared to Predicted group, the Treated group presented larger linear measurements for all measurements: 1) arch perimeter: 1.77±2.10 mm (maxilla) and 1.78±1.74 mm (mandible); 2) arch depth: 0.50±0.69 mm (maxilla) and 0.38±0.81 mm (mandible); 3) intercanine width: 0.30±0.98 mm (maxilla) and 0.49±0.64 mm (mandible), and; 4) intermolar width: 0.70±1.63 mm (maxilla) and 1.13±1.62 mm (mandible). Seven out of 14 angular measurements showed statistical differences between Predicted and Treated groups in the maxilla, while six out of 14 angular measurements were statistically significant between the two groups; the differences ranging from -8.91º to 1.91º and from -3.53° to 9.59° in the maxilla and mandible, respectively.
conclusionsThe agreement between the Predicted and Treated groups was majority within the limits. The predictions of the digital system were not accurate in some parameters; however, most of the differences were within clinical acceptable range. Although there are some inaccuracies, the limitations do not seem to interfere with clinical outcomes and the quality of the treatment.
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.