Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33442754›Full record

ArticleJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2021

Occlusal outcome after orthodontic treatment with preadjusted straight-wire and standard edgewise appliances : A retrospective cohort study.

Spyridon N Papageorgiou, Raphael Tilen, Vaska Vandevska-Radunovic, Theodore Eliades

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Spyridon N PapageorgiouClinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstraße 11, Zurich, Switzerland. snpapage@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1968-3326
Raphael TilenClinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstraße 11, Zurich, Switzerland.
Vaska Vandevska-RadunovicDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4098-5161
Theodore EliadesClinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstraße 11, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2313-4979
University of Zurich · CHUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOrthodontic fixed appliances have been proven to be effective in treating a wide variety of malocclusions, and different types of appliances have emerged during recent decades. However, the comparative effects of different appliances have not been adequately assessed. Thus, the aim was to assess the occlusal outcome of orthodontic treatment with preadjusted straight-wire (SWIRE) and standard edgewise (SEDGE) appliances.

methodsIn all, 56 patients (mean age: 13.5 years; 45% male) receiving extraction-based treatment with either SWIRE or SEDGE appliances were included. Between-group differences in the occlusal outcome assessed with the American Board of Orthodontists Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS) and treatment duration were analyzed statistically at the 5% level.

resultsThe average ABO-OGS score was 31.3 ± 7.2 points and 34.0 ± 10.4 points in the SWIRE and SEDGE groups with no statistically significant difference between groups (P = 0.26). Treatment duration was significantly shorter in the SWIRE group compared to the SEDGE group, with an average difference of -6.8 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI] = -9.6 to -4.0 months; P < 0.001). Likewise, fewer visits were needed with SWIRE compared to SEDGE appliances with an average difference of -7.2 visits (95% CI = -10.3 to -4.2 visits; P < 0.001). Adjusting for the influence of any potential confounders did not considerably impact the results.

conclusionSimilar treatment outcomes were observed after premolar extraction treatment with SWIRE and SEDGE appliances. On the other hand, SEDGE appliances were associated with prolonged treatment duration and more visits needed to complete treatment compared to SWIRE appliances.

Indexed as

MalocclusionAdolescentFemaleHumansMaleOrthodontic AppliancesOrthodontic Appliances, FixedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesFixed appliancesOrthodonticsRetrospective cohort studyTreatment durationTreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID33442754
PMCPMC8384812
OpenAlexW3118897261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.