Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40341057›Full record

ArticleHead & face medicine2025

Validation of a digital, partly automated three-dimensional cast analysis for evaluation of orthodontic treatment assessment.

Franziska A Lang, Norbert A Lang, Julia Vorloeper, Christian Niederau, Rogerio B Craveiro, Isabel Knaup, Michael Wolf

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Franziska A Lang *Department of Orthodontics, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. fcoenen@ukaachen.de.
Norbert A Lang *Department of Orthodontics, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Julia VorloeperDepartment of Orthodontics, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Christian NiederauDepartment of Orthodontics, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Rogerio B CraveiroDepartment of Orthodontics, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Isabel Knaup *Department of Orthodontics, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Michael Wolf *Department of Orthodontics, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Imaging, Three-DimensionalModels, DentalOrthodontics, CorrectiveAdolescentFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsAnalysis softwareComparison digital analogueDigital model analysisPartly automated

Identifiers

PMID40341057
PMCPMC12060358

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.