ArticleHead & face medicine2025
Validation of a digital, partly automated three-dimensional cast analysis for evaluation of orthodontic treatment assessment.
Article in Head & face medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utilising a web-based e-learning platform for orthodontic case analysis training: a randomised controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Automated measurement of Little's Irregularity Index on intraoral photographs using a convolutional neural network.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- 3D Clinical Overjet: Description of a Surface-Based Three-Dimensional Method for Measuring the Sagittal Relationship Between Dental Arches in Class II Malocclusion.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of automated algorithm-based versus manual dental landmark placement for model analysis and evaluation of orthodontic quality indices.European journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Three-dimensional stability during orthodontic retention: A comparative analysis of conventional, CAD/CAM-fabricated, and robotically bent fixed retainers versus removable appliances.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Arch Dimensions and Bolton Ratio in Manual and Artificial Intelligence Tooth Segmentation.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2026Article
- The Expanding Role of Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: A Cross-Specialty Chairside Perspective.Cureus · 2025Review
- Correlation Between Upper Dental Arch Dimensions and Vertical Facial Height in Subjects with Skeletal Class I Occlusion: A Cephalometric Analysis.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlaster models have been considered the gold standard in traditional orthodontic model analysis. Modern imaging techniques and ever-advancing technologies have expanded the scope of digital diagnostic tools. These innovations allow the use of devices specifically designed for the diagnosis of 3D structures. The aim of this method comparison study was to determine the accuracy and efficiency of digital measurements compared to conventional manual measurements on plaster models. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe present cohort constitutes the evaluation of pretherapeutic situation models of 247 orthodontically treated patients (129 females and 118 males, average age 16.76 +- 9.49 years) with mixed or permanent dentition who were treated at the University Hospital RWTH Aachen between January 2018 and December 2020. Plaster models were digitised using a model scanner, and an experienced examiner performed various measurements on blinded plaster models using a calliper and on digital models using the specially developed 'Tooth width analysis Aachen' patch in the OnyxCeph3TM-3D software. The intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were determined by a second, blinded assessor. Measurements included tooth width, crown height, arch width, arch length and arch circumference, as well as overjet and overbite. Differences between analogue and digital methods were calculated.
resultsDifferences of up to 0.3 mm were observed between manual and partially automated digital measurements for sagittal, transversal and vertical parameters. Teeth with close proximal contact to adjacent teeth and teeth in jaws with a negative space analysis result showed an increased difference between manual and partially automated digital measurements, although this was not clinically relevant. The time required to perform digital measurements was statistically significantly reduced.
conclusionsPartially automated digital impression analysis offers an accurate, highly efficient and time-saving alternative to traditional manual impression analysis.
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.