ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2026
Validation of a digital tool for Moyers mixed dentition analysis: agreement and efficiency compared with the manual method.
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMixed dentition analysis is essential for predicting space requirements and guiding early orthodontic decision-making. Moyers analysis is widely used due to its simplicity and clinical applicability, however, manual execution may increase execution time and introduce operator-dependent errors.
objectiveThis study aimed to develop and validate an automated digital tool based on Moyers analysis, to improve efficiency and support orthodontic education. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis cross-sectional study included 20 participants (10 undergraduate and 10 graduate dental students) who performed mixed dentition analysis on a standardized plaster model using the manual method and a software-based method at separate time points. Agreement between methods was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman analysis, and linear regression to assess proportional bias. Execution time was recorded and compared using paired t tests. Participant preference was also assessed.
resultsExcellent reliability was observed (ICC > 0.95). No statistically significant differences were found between the manual and software-based methods (p > 0.05), and Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated substantial agreement without proportional bias. The software-based method reduced execution time by 38.2% (p < 0.001). All participants preferred the software-based method.
conclusionThe software-based method demonstrated agreement comparable to the manual Moyers analysis, while significantly reducing execution time. Its usability and efficiency support its application in orthodontic education and clinical workflow optimization.
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.