ArticleBMC oral health2025
Validating cephalometric angular reconstruction for determining vertical dimension in edentulous patients.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate vertical dimension of rest (VDR) is critical in complete denture fabrication. Along with conventional phonetic and electromyographic (EMG) methods; cephalometric angular reconstruction (CAR) has recently been proposed as a reliable approach that minimizes reliance on patient dexterity. This in-vivo study aimed to determine the effectiveness of the CAR method by comparing it with conventional and electromyographic methods in determining VDR in edentulous subjects. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty completely edentulous patients were enrolled. For each patient, VDR was measured using phonetic, CAR, and EMG methods. Data were analyzed with SPSS version 23 using one-way ANOVA and independent t-tests. A sample size of 20 provided 80% power with an effect size of 0.8 at a significance level of 0.05. One month after denture insertion, patient satisfaction was assessed with a structured questionnaire.
resultsThe mean VDR (cm) was 5.36 ± 0.61 for the conventional method, 5.35 ± 0.74 for CAR, and 5.64 ± 0.62 for EMG. Although the EMG method yielded slightly higher values, independent t-tests revealed no statistically significant differences between conventional and CAR (p = 0.962), conventional and EMG (p = 0.181), or CAR and EMG (p = 0.167). Patient satisfaction scores indicated favorable outcomes across all groups.
conclusionThere was no statistically significant difference among the three methods, confirming that CAR can serve as a viable alternative to conventional and EMG approaches. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The CAR method may be particularly useful for patients with neuromuscular issues, psychological challenges, or limited cooperation during traditional VDR recording.
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.