ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparison of the consistency of three different methods for measuring mandibular movement parameters: a pilot study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis pilot study evaluated the repeatability and consistency of three methods—conventional, ultrasonic, and optical—for measuring mandibular functional parameters, with the goal of providing guidance for clinical implementation.
methodsSagittal condylar inclination (SCI), Bennett angle (BA), and incisal and canine guidance were measured in 30 young adults (aged 19–27 years) using the three methods to assess intra-method repeatability, inter-method consistency, and differences in operating time (ΔOT).
resultsAll three methods demonstrated good repeatability for functional parameters (ICC: 0.850–0.997). No significant differences were observed in SCI and BA values between bilateral measurements within the same participants across all methods (p > 0.05). Right SCI showed no significant differences among groups (p = 0.068), but left SCI was significantly larger in the optical group (p = 0.001). BA values were significantly higher in the conventional group than in the ultrasonic group (p = 0.044 left, p = 0.023 right); no significant difference was observed between the ultrasonic and optical groups (p = 0.808 left, p = 1.000 right). Comparisons of incisal and canine guidance inclinations revealed no significant differences among groups (p > 0.05). The ΔOT was significantly shorter in the optical group than in the conventional and ultrasonic groups (p < 0.0001).
conclusionsAll three methods demonstrated excellent intra-method repeatability for measuring functional parameters in young adults but showed moderate inter-method consistency, particularly in SCI and BA values. For posterior and anterior rehabilitation in young adults, ultrasonic methods are preferred because of their superior consistency. When time efficiency is critical and anterior guidance is preserved, optical methods are acceptable with caution.
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.