ArticlePloS one2026
Status report on novel intraoral scanner-based registration method of axes of rotation of the mandible: Proof of potential applicability and technological glass ceiling of in-house development.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A fast, equipment- and radiation-free input methodology for digital articulation is desirable for basic dental and surgical procedures of relatively low complexity. Our team previously proposed an intraoral scanner (IOS)-based strategy for calculating the mandibular axis of rotation using dual bite registrations in open and closed positions. In this study, we aimed to develop a methodology for validating this registration system using a state-of-the-art jaw motion tracking device (Modjaw). The bite alignment accuracy of the scanner used (Medit i600) proved sufficient for the task; however, its technical settings allow processing of only a limited number of bite positions, thereby restricting the number of cases that can be analysed. While in-house, insoluble technical limitations restricted the number of participants to four, significantly limiting the generalizability of the results, several main trends nevertheless appear to emerge: We verified our previous results regarding the error-induced effect ratios (EcD and AEcFE) and provided strong in-vivo support for our earlier in-vitro findings. Notably, alignment of axes obtained with our IOS-based method closely resembled the "parallel error direction" described previously. The reproducibility of our methodology approaches the desired 0.1 mm error threshold, but when compared with our control tool (Modjaw), it does not yet meet this criterion. The level of inaccuracy suggests that the goal remains achievable; with protocol modifications, the method could become an acceptable alternative for virtual articulation. Our findings highlight persistent clinical dilemmas and underline that many patient safety concerns remain unresolved, even in the era of advanced digital technologies. We proposed a renewed digital version of the conventional analogue control setup of articulation methods by dynamic motion registers, as a potential strategy to establish and maintain patient safety standards. Although integrating different digital platforms poses significant technological challenges, automated metrics and comparative setups offer advanced possibilities compared to the analogue experimental era.
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.