Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison between the maxillary positions from CW and 3DW based on VMS

From: Comparison of manual and virtual model surgery for wafer fabrication in maxillary repositioning: an in vitro study

  

Tooth position

Mean

SD

Sig.

Transverse (x)

VMS a

#11

112.95

7.97

 

#13

98.44

8.31

#23

135.68

7.71

#16

88.58

7.72

#26

144.50

8.53

CW b (Δx)

#11

0.61

0.53

0.005*

#13

0.62

0.48

#23

0.61

0.62

#16

0.60

0.53

#26

0.59

0.41

3DW a (Δx)

#11

0.14

0.11

0.499

#13

0.20

0.10

#23

0.10

0.09

#16

0.11

0.11

#26

0.18

0.15

 

VMS a

#11

44.51

9.34

 
 

#13

52.54

9.02

 

#23

52.87

8.49

 

#16

68.73

9.38

 

#26

70.83

8.86

Anteroposterior (y)

CW b (Δy)

#11

0.96

0.92

0.016*

 

#13

1.06

1.05

 

#23

1.03

0.71

 

#16

1.00

1.00

 

#26

0.96

0.70

 

3DW a (Δy)

#11

0.11

0.09

0.621

 

#13

0.19

0.12

 

#23

0.18

0.14

 

#16

0.16

0.10

 

#26

0.20

0.14

 

VMS a

#11

580.67

27.61

 

Vertical (z)

#13

579.28

27.56

 

#23

579.46

27.11

 

#16

575.18

28.99

 
 

#26

575.53

28.42

 

CW b (Δz)

#11

0.54

0.31

0.003*

 

#13

0.63

0.36

 

#23

0.88

0.38

 

#16

0.70

0.36

 

#26

0.81

0.38

 

3DW a (Δz)

#11

0.12

0.07

0.533

 

#13

0.13

0.09

 

#23

0.16

0.12

 

#16

0.16

0.18

 

#26

0.14

0.09

  1. The same superscript letter indicates statistical insignificance, and different letters indicates statistical significance. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Asterisks indicate statistical significance compared to VMS. CW, conventionally fabricated wafer; 3DW, 3D-printed wafer; VMS, virtual model surgery; SD, standard deviation