ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2022
A Comparison on Efficiency and Aerosol Generation between "Modified and Conventional Technique of Bracket Bonding".
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The novel COVID-19 which spread's primarily through oral and nasal passage poses a major threat of spread during dental treatments. It is important for dental practitioners to use minimal aerosol techniques. The aim of this study is to compare the time taken, efficiency and aerosol generated between modified and conventional technique (CT) of bracket bonding. Methods: This study includes 40 patients who required complete orthodontic treatment. In all 40 patients, one of the arches was bonded with modified technique (MT) and the opposing with CT. The time taken to prepare tooth in both the techniques were accessed. The efficiency of bond was seen over a period of 6 months. The amount of aerosol particulate matter generated during CT and MT was observed using a laser air quality monitor. Conclusion: There is no significant difference in the bond failure and time taken between both the techniques. The aerosol generated in MT was minimal or almost negligible when compared to the use of CT.
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.