ClinicalTrials.gov
public full text
Public Domain
Digital vs. Analog Inputs in CAD/CAM Orthodontics: A Comparative Clinical Evaluation of Palatal Expander Fabrication Workflow
36 patients with unilateral or bilateral cross bite treated with hyrax expanders fabricated through three distinct workflows: fully conventional (physical impression + manual fabrication), hybrid (physical impression + CAD/CAM fabrication), and fully digital (intraoral scanning + CAD/CAM fabrication). To evaluate and compare the clinical fit, workflow efficiency, and patient/clinician satisfaction of palatal expanders fabricated using traditional, hybrid digital, and fully digital workflows.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Integration of Digital Twin Technology in Orthodontics: A Scoping Review.#298828
- Effectiveness of Two Maxillary Expanders in Improving the Transverse Skeletal and Dental Dimensions in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate#868899
- Comparison of Two Tooth-borne Expanders in Rapid Maxillary Expansion#836257
- Effectiveness of Aligners Versus Rapid Maxillary Expansion#874417
- Editorial: Digital implant dentistry: new developments to enhance clinical workflows and patient care.#430801
Record · ID 968106
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive