ArticleProgress in orthodontics2026
Comparison between automated and manual digital diagnostic setups of orthodontic extraction cases: an in silico study.
Article in Progress in orthodontics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Considerations in Using Artificial Intelligence to Simulate Orthodontic Treatment for Implant-Prosthetic Purposes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Correlation Between Lip Prominence and Orthodontic Incisor Repositioning Within an Aesthetic Triangle Framework.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was to evaluate automated digital diagnostic setup in bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion cases using two software packages and to compare them to manual digital setup. METHODOLOGY: Pre-treatment intraoral scans of 14 patients whose treatment plans involved extraction of four first premolars were imported as Standard Tessellation Language files into dentOne
resultsThe inter-canine, inter-premolar and inter-molar widths did not change significantly following manual virtual setup, while the arch length significantly decreased. The inter-premolar width, inter-molar width and arch length significantly decreased following both automated setups. The manual setup showed significantly greater lingual translation of maxillary and mandibular incisors compared to Ortho Simulation software (mean difference = 5.97 ± 1.10 mm and 7.02 ± 1.29 mm, respectively) and dentOne software (mean difference = 5.73 ± 0.96 mm and 6.95 ± 1.26 mm, respectively). The mesial translation of the maxillary and mandibular molars in Ortho simulation setup (8.35 ± 1.62 mm and 8.69 ± 1.91 mm, respectively) and dentOne setup (7.41 ± 1.28 mm and 7.74 ± 1.90 mm, respectively) was statistically significantly higher than that obtained using the manual setup (- 0.08 ± 0.27 mm, 0.03 ± 0.47 mm, respectively). All setups showed clinically significant lingual inclination of maxillary and mandibular incisors, with the manual setup exhibiting more lingual inclination than both automated setups. Ortho Simulation setup was the fastest method (4.14 ± 0.53 min), followed by dentOne automated setups (7.57 ± 0.94 min), then the manual setup (21.00 ± 1.66 min).
conclusionDespite being faster, the automated diagnostic setups for bimaxillary protrusion cases constricted the dental arch and did not manage the extraction spaces well, hence, simulating anchorage loss. These findings highlight the need for manual refinement of the automated setups.
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.