ArticleMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2026
Comparison of the superimposition accuracy in the integration of different digital dental models into the cone-beam computed tomography: An ex vivo study.
Article in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate virtual planning for orthognathic surgery and dental implants requires integrating cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images into digital dental models, but the impact of different scanning methods on the superimposition accuracy remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the superimposition accuracy of dental models obtained from two scanning methods using CBCT scans of dental surfaces. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe maxilla (MX) and mandible (MD) of 4 dry skulls were scanned using CBCT and converted into 3D meshes. Dental arches were obtained using intraoral devices (IS) and by digitizing plaster models using an extraoral scanner (PM). Sixty-four digital models were produced per group. Each 3D mesh and corresponding model were imported into the Geomagic software for alignment and deviation analysis. Registration errors and mean deviations (MD+ and MD-) were assessed quantitatively, and the qualitative evaluation was performed through color maps.
resultsDeviations ranged from -0.4 to 0.3mm in both groups, with 80% of the values distributed between -0.5 and 0.5mm. In both groups, Registration error, MD+ and 3D Error were below 0.5mm, and MD- was higher than -0.5mm. Statistically significant differences were found between IS and PM models for MD+, as well as for registration error and MD+ in mandibular comparisons.
conclusionsSuperimpositions were not affected by the model acquisition method, and both were clinically acceptable. However, PM superimpositions showed greater deviation magnitudes, suggesting an inclination for IS to produce more accurate alignments, especially in the mandible.
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.