ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics
Comparison of changes in the dental transverse and sagittal planes between patients treated with self-ligating and with conventional brackets.
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07185087 (Evaluation of Treatment Progress and the Compliance of Patients Treated With DAMON Braces Versus Patients Treated With MBT Braces During Early Stage of Treatment), which is not on this 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.
Evaluation of Treatment Progress and the Compliance of Patients Treated With DAMON Braces Versus Patients Treated With MBT Braces During Early Stage of Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of the passive self-ligating system on alveolar bone thickness, dental inclinations, and arch dimensions.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSeveral advantages have been established regarding the efficiency of self-ligating brackets (SL). In spite of some controversy surrounding this question in the literature, clinical results confirm that "arch development" requires fewer extractions.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to compare changes in the transverse and sagittal planes in patients treated with conventional ligating brackets (CL)as well as in patients treated with SL brackets and oversized arches.
methodsA sample was selected from a pool of 300 consecutive cases treated by a single clinician: 51 patients with SL brackets and oversized wires, and 55 with CL brackets. These two groups were compared with a control group of 20 patients. All plaster models were scanned and dental landmarks were measured to identify changes from commencement (T0) to conclusion (T1) of treatment. Lateral cephalograms were analyzed for changes in the lower incisor (IMPA) and the first lower molar distal angulation (MAng). Intraoperator reliability was tested with linear regression analysis. To assure all groups were comparable at T0, an ANOVA test with a 95%confidence interval (CI) was performed for all values. To assess changes from T0 to T1 in all groups, a Student's t-test with 95% CI was used. Finally, results from the three groups were compared using an ANOVA-test (95% CI) and a post-hoc test.
resultsIncreases in all the transverse variables were recorded in the two groups treated (SL and CL), except for the lower intercanine distance in the SL group. IMPA difference from T0 to T1 was higher in the CL group, and molar distal angulation (MAng) took place in the SL group.
conclusionsSelf-ligating brackets with oversized arches and conventional ligating brackets showed increases in all variables in the transverse plane, except for the SL group at the mandibular intercanine distance. In comparison with the CL group, fewer different IMPA values were observed in the SL group, in which distal molar angulation occurred.
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.