SynthesisJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2018
Transversal changes, space closure, and efficiency of conventional and self-ligating appliances : A quantitative systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03647241 (An Evaluation of the Efficacy of Self-Ligating Brackets Alone Or In Combination With Flapless Corticotomy In Leveling And Aligning Severely Crowded Dental Arches Compared With Conventional Brackets), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
An Evaluation of the Efficacy of Self-Ligating Brackets Alone Or In Combination With Flapless Corticotomy In Leveling And Aligning Severely Crowded Dental Arches Compared With Conventional Brackets: A Randomized Clinical Controlled Trial
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Arch perimeter changes with passive self-ligating bracket system: a systematic review and meta analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Treatment Effects and Treatment Time in Adolescents With Crowded and Displaced Teeth Treated With Fixed Appliance Systems Without Extractions: A Multi-Centre Randomised Controlled Trial.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2025Trial
- Article
- Changes in the Mechanical Properties of Nickel-Titanium Orthodontic Archwires After Clinical Use with Conventional and Self-Ligating Brackets.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Comparison of Alignment Efficiency, Arch Dimensional Changes, and Passive Extraction Space Closure Between Self-Ligating and Conventional Brackets in Extraction Crowding Patients: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Posttreatment stability following therapy using passive self-ligating brackets: extraction vs. nonextraction.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2025Article
- Review
- Operating time for wire ligation with self-ligating and conventional brackets: A standardized in vitro study.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2022Article
- Effects of a ceramic active self-ligating bracket on retraction/tipping/ rotation of canine, premolar mesialization, and transverse arch dimensions: A preliminary single-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial.Dental research journal · 2021Article
- "In Vitro" Study About Variables that Influence in Arch Friction with Conventional and Self-Ligating Brackets.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Comparison of changes in the dental transverse and sagittal planes between patients treated with self-ligating and with conventional brackets.Dental press journal of orthodonticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSelf-ligating brackets (SLBs) were compared to conventional brackets (CBs) regarding their effectiveness on transversal changes and space closure, as well as the efficiency of alignment and treatment time.
methodsAll previously published randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) dealing with SLBs and CBs were searched via electronic databases, e.g., MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. In addition, relevant journals were searched manually. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers and assessment of the risk of bias was executed using Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. Meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager (version 5.3).
resultsA total of 976 patients in 17 RCTs were included in the study, of which 11 could be produced quantitatively and 2 showed a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses were found to favor CB for mandibular intercanine width expansion, while passive SLBs were more effective in posterior expansion. Moreover, CBs had an apparent advantage during short treatment periods. However, SLBs and CBs did not differ in closing spaces.
conclusionsBased on current clinical evidence obtained from RCTs, SLBs do not show clinical superiority compared to CBs in expanding transversal dimensions, space closure, or orthodontic efficiency. Further high-level studies involving randomized, controlled, clinical trials are warranted to confirm these results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29101414What 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.