| PubMed ID | Author / Year | Patient Group | Study type (level of evidence) |
| 12828439 | Zilberman/2003 | 20 setups of various malocclusions using artificial teeth | Comparison Study |
| Key results | Compared plaster casts were compared to Orthocad and Orthocad was found to be clinically acceptable | ||
| 19577140 | Leifert/2009 | 25 Class I crowded patients | Comparison Study |
| Key results | Compared Orthocad to standard models and found no significant difference on mandibular casts, and a small (.4mm) difference on maxillary casts. | ||
The Evidence
| Basic Science Rationale (Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
| None available |
| Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT (FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
| by Ketu Lincoln (San Antonio, TX) on 07/08/2012 I conducted a PubMed search on this topic July 2012. A systemic review published in 2011 (PMID: 21516170 ) references two additional articles (18, 19) that state the same conclusion and now have furthered the studies to superimpose digital dental models with 3D photographs/CBCT to assess dental/skeletal/and soft tissue treatment outcomes. |
| by Lindsey Fraser (San Antonio, TX) on 04/02/2012 I searched PubMed on this topic in April 2012. A systematic review was published in 2011 with the same results that digital models are as accurate as plaster models. PubMed ID 21205164. |
| by Julio De la Fuente (San Antonio TX) on 07/13/2011 An updated comparison study from 2010 has come to the same conclusion. Digital models are just as accurate as plaster models. Eur J Orthod. 2010 Oct;32(5):589-95. Epub 2010 Feb 17 PMID: 20164126 |
| by Jeffrey Holt (Aurora, Colorado) on 02/25/2015 Thanks for the updates and insights. This continues to be an interesting topic to me due to the demographic and social trends of the population I treat. It's nice to be able to have evidence to share with them. |
| by John P. Hatch, PhD (San Antonio, TX) on 02/25/2015 A Randomized controlled trial (Sood et. al. (2014; PMID: 25584309) compared chlorhexidine and oil-pulling versus a placebo. Neither treatment was superior to placebo as measured by post-treatment gingival index and plaque index scores. |
| by Blaine Calahan, DDS (San Antonio, TX) on 12/14/2014 A PubMed search conducted in December 2014 using keywords provided in the published CAT revealed no new evidence of the effect of oil-pulling versus Chlorhexidine as an adjunct to tooth brushing in the reduction of plaque-induced gingivitis. Additional Information: Two articles were published in 2011 by the primary author of the originally cited article, Asokan, and further explore the effects of oil-pulling: PubMed 21911944: This pilot RCT explores the effect of oil-pulling with sesame oil on halitosis compared to chlorhexidine, and indicates no significant difference between the two modalities in the reduction of modified gingival index, plaque index, BANA test, or subjective breath testing by an examiner or the test subject. PubMed 21525674: This in vitro study explores the mechanism of action of oil-pulling using sesame oil indicating no antibacterial effects of the sesame oil and proposing that oil-pulling over a period of 30 minutes results in progressive emulsification of the oil that may alter bacterial adhesion to the tooth and assist in their mechanical removal. |