ReviewJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Impact of 3D Printing and CAD/CAM Technology on Orthodontic Treatment Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) printing and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology in orthodontics have enabled digital workflows, enabling greater treatment efficiency, accuracy, and clinical use. Comparative analysis with traditional methods has provided variable results, and systematic review of their effects on orthodontic treatment outcomes is therefore warranted. Systematic review and meta-analysis, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, were performed to evaluate the effects of 3D printing and CAD/CAM technology on orthodontic outcomes. Eligible studies that compared digital workflows, treatment efficiency, accuracy of custom-made appliances, mechanical and esthetic properties, and clinical usability were included. The accuracy of 3D-printed orthodontic models was comparable with that of traditional plaster models (mean difference (MD) = 0.12 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.08 to 0.32; I
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.