ArticleBMC oral health2025
An in vitro study of a novel intraoperative 3D-printed device for intentional replantation.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo improve the accuracy and efficiency of intentional replantation, we designed a novel intraoperative three-dimensionally printed device. This study aimed to evaluate its assistance in intentional replantation by comparing the accuracy and efficiency of the procedure performed with and without the device in extracted premolars and molars.
methodsTwenty-two mandibular premolars and 18 mandibular molars were collected and equally divided into two comparable groups according to tooth type. In the experimental group, a novel three-dimensionally printed intraoperative device was used to enhance tooth stabilisation, and improve root-end resection and preparation accuracy. In the control group, a saline-soaked gauze was used to hold the crown. Accuracy was assessed by measuring the length and angle deviation of the root-end resection, and the angle deviation of the root-end preparation. Efficiency was evaluated based on operation time. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS software, with comparisons made using the Satterthwaite t-test and Mann–Whitney U test. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.
resultsThe angle deviations for root-end resection with premolars and molars in experimental group were significantly lower compared with those in control group (P < 0.05). Analysis of the length deviations for root-end resection, the angle deviations for root-end preparation and the operation time between two groups revealed no significant differences with both tooth types.
conclusionsThe novel intraoperative device effectively supported intentional replantation without reducing operational efficiency. Furthermore, it improved root-end resection angle accuracy in both premolars and molars.
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.