Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2022
Comparing patient-centered outcomes and efficiency of space closure between nickel-titanium closed-coil springs and elastomeric power chains during orthodontic treatment.
Trial report in The Angle orthodontist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 4 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 Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Laceback: A Split-Mouth Randomised Controlled Trial
Comparing Ligation Methods During Canine Retraction Stage Using Conventional Brackets: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Laceback Ligature in Fixed Orthodontic Treatment: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Summed Tissue Resistance of Periodontal Ligaments and Alveolar Bone in Orthodontic Distal Retraction of Maxillary Canines: Mathematical Simulation of Clinical Data and Interpretation of Results.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
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
objectivesTo compare patient-reported pain, discomfort, and difficulty in maintaining proper brushing between nickel-titanium closed-coil springs (CS) and elastomeric power chains (PC) when used for space closure. The secondary aims were to compare plaque control and efficiency of space closure between these two force delivery systems. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 48 patients who required extractions of upper first premolars and distal movement of upper canines had the CS randomly allocated to either the right or left side. Blinding was applied at data collection and analysis. Primary outcomes were pain intensity measured on visual analog scale, pain onset and duration, discomfort, and difficulty in maintaining proper brushing from the start of canine retraction at baseline and at 6 and 12 weeks thereafter. Secondary outcomes were plaque scores and the rate of space closure.
resultsNo significant differences in mean pain scores, pain onset, and duration at different time intervals between CS and PC were observed. The CS side was significantly less comfortable than the PC (P < .0001) and more difficult to keep clean (P = .008). No significant differences in plaque scores were observed between CS and PC groups at any time interval. CS produced a faster rate of space closure than did PC (P = .008).
conclusionsCS were less tolerated than PC by patients but produced an average of 0.5 mm more movement than did the PC during the 12-week study period.
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.