ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2016
Orthodontic treatment of a particular subgroup of children with special health care needs, children with craniofacial anomalies: An analysis of treatment length and clinical outcome.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Axenfeld-Rieger syndrome: orthopedic and orthodontic management in a pediatric patient: a case report.Head & face medicine · 2022Article
- Rare Disorders: Diagnosis and Therapeutic Planning for Patients Seeking Orthodontic Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze any differences in the orthodontic treatment between children belonging to a particular subgroup of subjects with special health care needs (SHCN), children with craniofacial anomalies (CFA), and children not diagnosed with SHCN (NO SHCN). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study sample consisted of 50 children with SHCN and a confirmed diagnosis of CFA (SHCN/CFA); the control group consisted of 50 NO SHCN children fully matched for age, gender, and type of appliance used. The differences between the two groups were analyzed retrospectively: pre-, posttreatment scores, and score reduction of the Peer Assessment Rating Index (PAR), dental health component (DHC), and aesthetic component (AC) of Orthodontic Treatment Need Index (IOTN), number of appointments, number of simple or complex chair-time appointments, overall treatment time, and age at treatment start and end.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences between the SHCN/CFA and NO SHCN groups for number of appointments, overall treatment time, age at treatment start, and age at treatment end (P = .682, .458, .535, and .675, respectively). There were statistically significant differences between groups in PAR, DHC, AC pre- and posttreatment, and number of simple and complex chair-time appointments (P = .030 and .000; .020 and .023; .000 and .000; .043; and .037; respectively). The reduction of PAR, DHC, and AC scores was not significantly different between groups (P = .060, .765, and .825, respectively).
conclusionThe treatment of children with SHCN, in general, and with CFA, in particular, on the one hand involves a higher rate of using complex chair time appointments and an inferior treatment outcome, by the other side implies an overall treatment time and a reduction of PAR, DHC or AC scores similar to the treatment of children not diagnosed with SHCN.
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.