FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4225288575> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4225288575 endingPage "1339" @default.
• W4225288575 startingPage "1331" @default.
• W4225288575 abstract "Purpose Printed cutting and repositioning templates could bring superior accuracy when transferring a maxillary plan to the operating room compared to a wafer-based method. However, the effect of these methods in different types of cases is inconclusive. The objective of the study was to compare the accuracy when using printed occlusal splints versus templates in simple and complicated cases. Methods A retrospective cohort study design was used. Complicated cases were defined as cases involving impaction movement of more than 2 mm, occlusal plane canting of more than 3°, or midline discrepancies of more than 2.5 mm. Other cases were simple cases. Enrolled patients were randomly allocated into the digital occlusal splint (DOS) cohort and the digital templates (DT) cohort. The outcome variable was surgical accuracy, defined as the average deviation between the planned and postsurgical locations of bilateral maxillary central incisors, canines, first premolars, and first molars. Predictor variables were 1) operative complexity, simple versus complicated; and 2) technique for positioning the maxilla, DOS versus DT. Covariates were age and planned surgical movement. Two-way analysis of variance was used. Results Seventy patients were included in this study. Thirty-three were in the DOS cohort, and 37 in the DT cohort. The average deviation was significantly smaller in the complicated cases in the DT cohort (1.37 mm; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.66 mm) than that in the DOS cohort (2.47 mm; 95% confidence interval, 1.92-3.02 mm) (P = .002). The deviations in anteroposterior direction of complicated cases in the DT cohort were smaller than the corresponding values of the DOS cohort (P = .035). There is no significant difference between the deviation values of simple and complicated cases using templates (P = .116). Conclusion These results indicate that in complicated cases, printed guiding templates exhibit better accuracy for repositioning the maxilla than printed occlusal splints, and the effect of templates in different cases proved to be stable. Printed cutting and repositioning templates could bring superior accuracy when transferring a maxillary plan to the operating room compared to a wafer-based method. However, the effect of these methods in different types of cases is inconclusive. The objective of the study was to compare the accuracy when using printed occlusal splints versus templates in simple and complicated cases. A retrospective cohort study design was used. Complicated cases were defined as cases involving impaction movement of more than 2 mm, occlusal plane canting of more than 3°, or midline discrepancies of more than 2.5 mm. Other cases were simple cases. Enrolled patients were randomly allocated into the digital occlusal splint (DOS) cohort and the digital templates (DT) cohort. The outcome variable was surgical accuracy, defined as the average deviation between the planned and postsurgical locations of bilateral maxillary central incisors, canines, first premolars, and first molars. Predictor variables were 1) operative complexity, simple versus complicated; and 2) technique for positioning the maxilla, DOS versus DT. Covariates were age and planned surgical movement. Two-way analysis of variance was used. Seventy patients were included in this study. Thirty-three were in the DOS cohort, and 37 in the DT cohort. The average deviation was significantly smaller in the complicated cases in the DT cohort (1.37 mm; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.66 mm) than that in the DOS cohort (2.47 mm; 95% confidence interval, 1.92-3.02 mm) (P = .002). The deviations in anteroposterior direction of complicated cases in the DT cohort were smaller than the corresponding values of the DOS cohort (P = .035). There is no significant difference between the deviation values of simple and complicated cases using templates (P = .116). These results indicate that in complicated cases, printed guiding templates exhibit better accuracy for repositioning the maxilla than printed occlusal splints, and the effect of templates in different cases proved to be stable." @default.
• W4225288575 created "2022-05-05" @default.
• W4225288575 creator A5005260055 @default.
• W4225288575 creator A5011000068 @default.
• W4225288575 creator A5015668757 @default.
• W4225288575 creator A5046169974 @default.
• W4225288575 creator A5072140586 @default.
• W4225288575 creator A5079351209 @default.
• W4225288575 creator A5085234024 @default.
• W4225288575 date "2022-08-01" @default.
• W4225288575 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W4225288575 title "Comparison of the Accuracy of Maxillary Repositioning Between Using Splints and Templates in 2-Jaw Orthognathic Surgery" @default.
• W4225288575 cites W1971687366 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W1979857435 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W2020827583 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W2032619499 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W2055368546 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W2061313866 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W2069269508 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W2095045911 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W2125238209 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W2150454052 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W2299498979 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W2610028657 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W2616899682 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W2731572740 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W2749816656 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W2759357398 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W2772821535 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W2806428242 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W2897992546 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W2903219751 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W2913508060 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W3024226298 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W3094792206 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W3094903309 @default.
• W4225288575 cites W319236769 @default.
• W4225288575 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2022.04.016" @default.
• W4225288575 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35636471" @default.
• W4225288575 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4225288575 type Work @default.
• W4225288575 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W4225288575 countsByYear W42252885752022 @default.
• W4225288575 countsByYear W42252885752023 @default.
• W4225288575 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4225288575 hasAuthorship W4225288575A5005260055 @default.
• W4225288575 hasAuthorship W4225288575A5011000068 @default.
• W4225288575 hasAuthorship W4225288575A5015668757 @default.
• W4225288575 hasAuthorship W4225288575A5046169974 @default.
• W4225288575 hasAuthorship W4225288575A5072140586 @default.
• W4225288575 hasAuthorship W4225288575A5079351209 @default.
• W4225288575 hasAuthorship W4225288575A5085234024 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConcept C122246415 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConcept C151279780 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConcept C167135981 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConcept C178910020 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConcept C202271784 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConcept C2776347944 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConcept C2778623055 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConcept C2781425848 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConcept C29694066 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConcept C72563966 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConceptScore W4225288575C122246415 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConceptScore W4225288575C126322002 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConceptScore W4225288575C126838900 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConceptScore W4225288575C141071460 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConceptScore W4225288575C151279780 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConceptScore W4225288575C167135981 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConceptScore W4225288575C178910020 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConceptScore W4225288575C199343813 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConceptScore W4225288575C202271784 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConceptScore W4225288575C2776347944 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConceptScore W4225288575C2778623055 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConceptScore W4225288575C2781425848 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConceptScore W4225288575C29694066 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConceptScore W4225288575C44249647 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConceptScore W4225288575C71924100 @default.
• W4225288575 hasConceptScore W4225288575C72563966 @default.
• W4225288575 hasFunder F4320321001 @default.
• W4225288575 hasFunder F4320322922 @default.
• W4225288575 hasIssue "8" @default.
• W4225288575 hasLocation W42252885751 @default.
• W4225288575 hasLocation W42252885752 @default.
• W4225288575 hasOpenAccess W4225288575 @default.
• W4225288575 hasPrimaryLocation W42252885751 @default.
• W4225288575 hasRelatedWork W1964502450 @default.
• W4225288575 hasRelatedWork W2005226858 @default.
• W4225288575 hasRelatedWork W2409053050 @default.
• W4225288575 hasRelatedWork W2547289130 @default.
• W4225288575 hasRelatedWork W2944912671 @default.
• W4225288575 hasRelatedWork W3012893869 @default.
• W4225288575 hasRelatedWork W3094903309 @default.

• next