ArticleJournal of dental education2026
Digital Versus Conventional Appliance Fabrication in Orthodontics: A Prospective Cohort Study on Students' Perception of Education.
Article in Journal of dental education, 2026. 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.
- Force systems of direct printed and thermoformed aligners with different trimlines during rotational movements: an in vitro analysis.Progress in orthodontics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis prospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the subjective perception of digital and conventional orthodontic fabrication methods among dental students. The educational effectiveness of conventional and digital approaches was assessed using a novel approach that included user experience surveys and a quantitative evaluation of the teaching units.
methodsA total of 64 pre-graduated dental students from two consecutive semesters independently fabricated a conventionally and a digitally manufactured orthodontic appliance. Subjective evaluations were collected about the two different fabrication methods using standardized User Experience Questionnaires (UEQ). Six dimensions were assessed: attractiveness, perspicuity, efficiency, dependability, stimulation, and novelty. The corresponding teaching unit (CAD/CAM seminar) was evaluated using a Likert-based questionnaire. The statistical analysis included Wilcoxon tests for paired samples and reliability assessments (Cronbach's alpha, Guttman's lambda-2).
resultsThe digital workflow received higher ratings in all UEQ dimensions, particularly for novelty (M = 1.87 vs. -1.08, p < 0.0001). Attractiveness of digital methods was perceived positively compared to the conventional approach (M = 1.59 / M = -0.21). Pragmatic quality (perspicuity, efficiency, and dependability) was also rated more favorably for the digital approach (M = 0.88 / 0.12). The associated CAD/CAM seminar received an overall positive evaluation. Participants reported learning progress and expressed interest in continuing the course.
conclusionDigital orthodontic fabrication methods are perceived more positively than conventional techniques by dental students, highlighting the value of integrating digital workflows into dental education.
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.