ArticleOrthodontics & craniofacial research2025
Comparison Between Direct, Virtual Aided by Clinician and Artificial Intelligence Bonding Techniques in Orthodontics.
Article in Orthodontics & craniofacial research, 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.
- Present and Future of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Orthodontics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine if there are any clinically significant differences between direct, virtual indirect, and artificial intelligence (AI) bonding techniques. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis in vivo study analysed 840 teeth selected from 14 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment with full fixed appliances. Anatomical superimpositions were performed, and data were collected as both numerical values and colour-coded deviation maps to assess the differences between direct, AI, and virtual indirect bonding techniques.
resultsThe intraclass correlation coefficient test showed good correlation (0.894). The Kruskal-Wallis comparison showed a statistically significant difference when comparing direct to virtual indirect and direct to AI. Descriptive statistics showed 4 values with clinically significant differences when comparing direct to virtual indirect. Descriptive statistics showed 3 values with clinically significant differences when comparing direct to AI. Root mean square (RMS) discrepancies exceeding 0.50 mm were found in four tooth types (AI vs. Direct) and three (Clinician vs. Direct).
conclusionsWe found statistically and clinically significant differences between AI and virtual indirect when compared to direct bonding. With our data, we could infer that if we compare AI versus virtual indirect, there might not be any clinically significant differences since the differences between them fall below 0.25 mm.
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.