ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2015
Are claims made in orthodontic journal advertisements evidence-supported?
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Public perception of the advertised claims of Damon® appliance system in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional survey-based study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Assessment of the quality and accuracy of information contained within the websites of marketed orthodontic products: a cross-sectional investigation.The Angle orthodontist · 2024Article
- The nature and accuracy of Instagram posts concerning marketed orthodontic products.The Angle orthodontist · 2022Article
- Clinical evaluation of marketed orthodontic products: are researchers behind the times? A meta-epidemiological study.Progress in orthodontics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the supporting evidence of advertisements published in six leading orthodontic journals. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe 2012-2013 printed issues of American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Australian Orthodontic Journal, Journal of Orthodontics, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, and Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics were screened for advertisements implying superior performance compared with competitor products. Advertisements were classified according to type of product, availability, and currency of supporting references.
resultsA total of 99 unique advertisements claiming clinical benefit or superiority were identified. The overwhelming majority of the identified advertisements promoted appliance products (62.6%), orthodontic materials (14.1%), and dental operatory equipment, including imaging systems (12.1%). Advertisements were found to provide references or not regardless of the product type. Half of the advertisements referred to at least one peer-reviewed publication, whereas unpublished studies were cited by 25% of the advertisements. Most of the referenced articles were published within the past 5 years.
conclusionsThe scientific background of advertisements in the orthodontic literature appears limited. While surveillance of journal advertising needs to be regulated, clinicians are urged to critically appraise the claims being made in orthodontic print advertisements by consulting the associated existing evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.