ArticleHead & face medicine2025
Comparison of manual and virtual model surgery for wafer fabrication in maxillary repositioning: an in vitro study.
Article in Head & face medicine, 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
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of 3D-printed intermediate wafers (3DW) with conventionally made intermediate wafers (CW) fabricated through manual model surgery (MMS). This study was designed as an in vitro experiment focused on the Le Fort I osteotomy and maxillary repositioning process. It aims to achieve maxillary repositioning outcomes mediated by intermediate wafers while eliminating intraoperative errors. MATERIALS AND
methodsBoth MMS and virtual model surgery (VMS) were performed for each patient to fabricate CW and 3DW. Subsequently, the maxillomandibular dental casts were remounted on the articulator using the fabricated CW and 3DW, followed by digital scanning and superimposition. The midpoint of the right maxillary central incisor edge, the uppermost points of the right and left maxillary canines, and the mesiobuccal cusps of the right and left maxillary molars were used as measurement points. The points in VMS were set as references for comparison. Paired t-tests were conducted to compare the outcomes between CW and 3DW. Independent t-tests were used to analyze differences between groups with and without rotational movements. Additionally, Spearman's correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationship between the rotational movement of the maxilla and the corresponding coordinate differences.
resultsSignificant differences were observed in the transverse (p = 0.005), anteroposterior (p = 0.016), and vertical (p = 0.003) coordinates between the maxillary positions derived from CW and VMS. In MMS, the presence of roll movement significantly influenced transverse position (p = 0.002), pitch affected vertical position (p < 0.001), and yaw impacted transverse (p = 0.005) and vertical (p = 0.019) positions.
conclusion3DW demonstrated greater accuracy than MMS with CW. Especially in cases involving rotational maxillary movements such as roll, yaw, and pitch, it resulted in fewer errors compared to MMS with CW. Consequently, 3DW offers more precise recording of maxillary repositioning plan and contributes to the successful transfer of this plan into the surgical outcome in orthognathic surgery.
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.