ArticleBMC oral health2025
The influence of different digital registration methods on measurement accuracy of clear aligner treatment outcomes.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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.
- Accuracy of Mandibular Dentition Distalisation With Invisalign in Class III Malocclusion: A Pilot Study Using CBCT Superimposition.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 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
objectivesTo compare the agreement of three digital model registration methods of different software packages in measuring angular and linear tooth movements obtained with Clear Aligner Treatment Therapy.
methodsThirty-two maxillary and mandibular intraoral pre-treatment (T1) and progress (T2) scans of patients undergoing clear aligner therapy were randomly selected, converted to STL files and exported to Geomagic, OrthoAnalyzer, and Compare model registration software packages. The amount of tooth movement of all maxillary and mandibular teeth was calculated in six degrees of freedom.
resultsThe angular and linear change in tooth position between T1 and T2 was compared using three different digital model registration software packages. Continuous data was expressed as mean and standard deviation. Intra class Correlation Coefficient for agreement between software programs was used. Significance of the obtained results was expressed at p ≤ 0.01. Differences larger than 0.5 mm for linear measurements and 2º for angular measurements were considered clinically relevant. Geomagic and Compare demonstrated excellent consistency in most dimensions (ICC > 0.90), including maxillary tip (ICC = 0.929) and mandibular tip (ICC = 0.912); however, combinations involving OrthoAnalyzer showed the poorest performance in mandibular torque measurements (ICC = 0.484-0.493), with OrthoAnalyzer's mean values (2.72 ± 4.30°) significantly higher than the other two software platforms; in the OG direction, all combinations involving OrthoAnalyzer showed ICC < 0.5, indicating 'poor reliability.
conclusionsGeomagic and Compare software demonstrated excellent consistency in measuring tooth movements, whereas OrthoAnalyzer consistently showed poor reliability for mandibular torque (ICC < 0.5) and occlusogingival movements (ICC < 0.5). These differences exceeded the clinical thresholds (0.5 mm for translations, 2° for angular changes) and highlight the importance of cautious interpretation when comparing results across platforms. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The use of CAT is exponentially growing in Orthodontics. Studies that compare treatment accuracy by superimposing two digital models, generate values based on a digital registration software. Does the software employed; cause a difference to the values generated, and subsequently our interpretation of accuracy of a given system? This study aims to address this knowledge gap.
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.