ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024
Feasibility study of low-dose computed tomography (CT) technology for maxillofacial bone three-dimensional (3D) printing in skeletal class III malocclusion.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Skeletal class III malocclusion is among the most common dental and maxillofacial malformations. Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has become widely applied in orthopaedics. The data source for 3D printing of maxillofacial bones is computed tomography (CT). The issue of the CT radiation dose caused by maxillofacial bone 3D printing has attracted increasing attention. This study aimed to explore the feasibility of low-dose CT technology in maxillofacial bone 3D printing and the clinical value of low-dose maxillofacial bone 3D printing. Methods: Ninety patients with class III malocclusion who planned to undergo maxillofacial bone 3D printing and 3D-CT were prospectively enrolled and randomly divided into the conventional CT dose 3D printing group (Group A, n=28), low-CT dose 3D printing group (Group B, n=32) and 3D-CT control group (Group C, n=30). The quality of maxillofacial bone 3D printing was subjectively evaluated, and a Likert-scale questionnaire was used to assess the clinical value of maxillofacial bone 3D printing. Results: No significant differences in the general demographic characteristics were detected among Groups A, B, and C. Compared with that in Group A (0.8±0.1 mSv), the radiation effective dose (ED) in Group B (0.3±0.1 mSv) was reduced by approximately 63%. There were no significant differences between Groups A and B in 3D printing quality indices (including clarity, integrity, accuracy or artefacts) (all P>0.05). There were significantly higher subjective scores for the clinical value of maxillofacial bone 3D printing (Group A=4.1±0.5, 4.0±0.5, 4.0±0.4 and 4.1±0.5; Group B=4.0±0.5, 4.0±0.4, 4.0±0.5 and 4.0±0.5) than for 3D-CT (Group C=3.1±0.5, 3.1±0.4, 2.9±0.4 and 3.0±0.4) in diagnosing and classifying, formulating the surgical plan, simulating the surgical process, and predicting postoperative recovery (all P<0.05). Conclusions: Low-dose CT technology can be effectively applied for maxillofacial bone 3D printing, reducing the radiation dose without affecting the 3D printing quality. Maxillofacial bone 3D printing technology is superior to 3D-CT in class III malformations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.