ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2018
Comparison of early treatment outcomes rendered in three different types of malocclusions.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics in adolescent : an evaluation of a latent profile and its associated risk factors.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Optimal Treatment Timing in Orthodontics: A Scoping Review.European journal of dentistry · 2024Article
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 evaluate the outcome of early treatment in Class I, II, and III malocclusions based on the reduction of weighted Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) scores. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo hundred thirty subjects (female = 105; male = 125) selected from 400 cases were divided into three groups based on their malocclusions (Class I, II, and III). The PAR index was evaluated prior to early treatment (T0), at the end of phase I (T1), and after completion of phase II therapy (T2). The reliability of overall PAR scores was assessed by Bland-Altman plot and intraclass correlation coefficient. The starting age, total weighted PAR scores and their changes after phase I and II treatments, treatment time, and the percentage of correction in the three different malocclusions were assessed by repeated-measures analysis of variance with post hoc analysis. The level of significance was set at P < .05.
resultsMore than 30% reduction of the weighted PAR scores and less than 10 points of the remaining weighted PAR scores were observed in all malocclusion groups at T1. The Class III group had the highest percentage of correction during phase I treatment.
conclusionsEarly treatment effectively reduced the complexity of Class I, II, and III malocclusions and accounted for 57%, 64%, and 76% of the total correction, respectively, after phase I treatment, as indicated by an overall reduction in weighted PAR scores. The Class III group responded most favorably to early treatment followed by the Class II group.
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.