ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of an intraoral scan-assisted registration method for guided endodontics: an in vitro study.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study was conducted to evaluate the registration accuracy of an intraoral scan-assisted registration (IR) method for guided endodontics.
methodsSeventy teeth were mounted into five stone dentition models. In terms of the registration method, there were two groups: one utilizing U-shaped tubes for registration (UR group) and the other using an intraoral scanner to aid in registration (IR group). In the UR group, U-shaped tubes were fixed on the model. Preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were performed, and fiducial markers on the U-shaped tubes were extracted for registration. In the IR group, fiducial markers were fixed on the crowns after preoperative CBCT scans were performed. The point cloud data were obtained by an intraoral scanner and aligned with the CBCT image to unify the coordinates of the model and markers. The markers were subsequently extracted for registration. The fiducial registration error (FRE) and target registration error (TRE) were calculated to evaluate the registration accuracy. The linear and angular deviations in the accuracy of root canal orifice localization under dynamic navigation were compared and analyzed using the two registration methods. Data were analyzed using t tests and repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) for normally distributed data and the Mann-Whitney U test for nonnormally distributed data.
resultsThe TRE of the IR (0.24 ± 0.09 mm) was lower than that of the UR (0.37 ± 0.08 mm), which was reflected mainly in the posterior teeth (P < 0.001). No significant difference in the accuracy of the linear or angular deviation was observed between the two groups (P > 0.05).
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, the IR was an accurate registration method in guided endodontics. However, further clinical validation is needed before this technique can be used in clinical practice.
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.