ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2022
Operating time for wire ligation with self-ligating and conventional brackets: A standardized in vitro study.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07063186 (Comparing Ligation Methods During Canine Retraction Stage Using Conventional Brackets), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Comparing Ligation Methods During Canine Retraction Stage Using Conventional Brackets: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Effect of conventional and self-ligating brackets on periodontal health. Systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Review
- Operating time for wire ligation with self-ligating and conventional brackets: A standardized in vitro study.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2022Article
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 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOperating time is one of the main advantages attributed from the literature to the use of self-ligating brackets (SLB). The aim of this study is to investigate the time needed for a complete archwire change procedure with conventional brackets (CB) and SLBs in a standardized in vitro research setting, comparing operators with different expertise. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-three participants were divided into three equal groups: undergraduate students, postgraduate students, and orthodontists. Three sets of typodonts bonded with three types of brackets, including passive SLBs, active SLBs, and CBs using both steel and elastic ligatures were investigated. Operators had to insert, ligate, deligate, and remove wires in sets of typodonts representing an actual dentition before and after orthodontic treatment, mounted in phantoms. Archwire change procedure times were compared between the different bracket/ligation systems, between the before- and after-treatment typodonts, and between operators.
resultsThere were significant differences between SLBs and CBs, the greatest difference being 11 min 16 s between passive SLBs and CBs ligated with metallic ligatures at T0, for the total archwire change procedure by the operators overall. For all the operators, there was a statistically significant difference in total archwire change procedure time between the systems. The undergraduate students were the slowest when using CBs, but they showed no significant difference compared to the other users when using SLBs.
conclusionSLBs can offer a significant operating time reduction compared to CBs, and time saving is not dependent on the operator's experience and training.
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.