ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
The Role of Stable Anatomical Landmarks in Automated 3D Model Superimposition: A Closer Look.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Influence of Superimposition Strategies and Landmark Distribution on the Full-Arch Trueness of Orthodontic Digital Models.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the concordance of automated 3D superimposition methods applied to digital models, with a focus on methods that consider stable palatal regions as geometric reference landmarks versus those that do not. DESIGN AND
settingThis was a prospective, cross-sectional study using digital model files of patients undergoing orthodontic treatment in a university clinical setting.
participantsSixty-one patients were prospectively enrolled and divided into three groups based on the type of orthodontic treatment they received: (20) non-extractive orthodontic treatment without intermaxillary elastics, (21) intermaxillary elastics, and (20) control subjects with no orthodontic movement. The inclusion criteria included the availability of complete pre- and post-treatment digital casts and the absence of significant craniofacial anomalies.
methodsThree superimposition methods were tested: (1) superimposition according to palate and palatal ridges, (2) best-fit superimposition of arches in occlusion, and (3) best-fit superimposition of individual arches. Discrepancies were identified by comparing the spatial positions derived from each method. Within three spatial axes, deviations of ±0.5 mm and ±1.15° were not considered significant. Bland-Altman plots were used to quantify palatal rugae based and non-based spatial differences between methods. Differences in the superimposition results between the three patient groups were evaluated using ANOVA tests.
resultsDifferences in spatial position between the superimposition methods often exceeded the acceptable range. The results were compared between the three patient groups with a statistical significance of α = 0.05. In the present study, the high reliability of the superimposition method based on the palate and palatal ridges was observed.
conclusionSuperimposition methods based on the palate and palatal rugae provide superior accuracy in determining treatment-related changes in upper arch digital models. These findings illustrate the need for appropriate selection of superimposition techniques based on the study objective of using clinically relevant techniques.
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.