Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40632322›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2025

Applicability of intraoral scans for presurgical orthopedic treatment of cleft lip and palate in infants: a prospective non-randomized comparative study.

Christiane Keil, Michaela Buckova, Sheila Keil, Louis Hartmann, Wilhelm Schlupp, Thomas Zerjatke, Theodosia Bartzela, Günter Lauer

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

8 authors.

Christiane KeilDepartment of Orthodontics, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, Haus 28, D-01307, Dresden, Germany. christiane.keil@ukdd.de.
Michaela BuckovaDepartment of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Sheila KeilDepartment of Orthodontics, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, Haus 28, D-01307, Dresden, Germany.
Louis HartmannDepartment of Orthodontics, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, Haus 28, D-01307, Dresden, Germany.
Wilhelm SchluppDepartment of Orthodontics, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, Haus 28, D-01307, Dresden, Germany.
Thomas ZerjatkeInstitute for Medical Informatics and Biometry (IMB), Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Theodosia BartzelaDepartment of Orthodontics, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, Haus 28, D-01307, Dresden, Germany.
Günter LauerDepartment of Orthodontics, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, Haus 28, D-01307, Dresden, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis in vivo study evaluated the reliability of digital impressions from intraoral scans compared to digital scans of plaster casts of the edentulous maxilla of infants with cleft lip and palate (CLP). MATERIALS AND

methodsTo compare and evaluate the dimensional accuracy of digital and conventional impressions, 52 infants with CLP were selected. Conventional plaster and digital impressions were taken from each patient before surgical closure of the lips and/or palate. Plaster casts were digitized using the intraoral scanner. Eight linear distances were measured and 3D superimpositions were performed. Pearson's correlation, mean difference and root mean square were calculated to compare the two impression methods.

resultsRegardless of the form of CLP, the IOS and the plaster casts correlated very well. The measured linear dimensions of the IOS were greater than those of the digitized plaster casts. Although the linear measurements showed differences of up to 0.89 mm, superimpositions showed that the two impression methods did not differ in a clinically relevant way.

conclusionsNo clinically relevant difference in accuracy was found between IOS and the plaster casts. When investigating the accuracy, 3D analysis should always be preferred to 2D analysis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study confirms that IOS is a reliable and clinical valuable alternative for infants with CLP. IOS eliminates risks associated with traditional methods, providing a safer and more efficient workflow for PSIO. Despite minor differences in dimensional accuracy, these variations are clinically negligible and do not impact treatment planning or appliance fabrication.

Indexed as

Cleft LipCleft PalateDental Impression TechniqueFemaleHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalInfantMaleModels, DentalPreoperative CareProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsCleft lipCleft palateDental modelsOrthopedic proceures

Identifiers

PMID40632322
PMCPMC12241132

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.