ArticleDisease markers2022
Clinical Study on Efficiency of Using Traditional Direct Bonding or OrthGuide Computer-Aided Indirect Bonding in Orthodontic Patients.
Article in Disease markers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Indirect orthodontic bonding using an original 3D method compared with conventional technique: A narrative review.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
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
Objective: This study aims to clinically investigate and compare the therapeutic effects and treatment cycle between traditional direct bonding and OrthGuide computer-aided indirect bonding in orthodontic treatment. Methods: Forty patients treated at the Department of Orthodontics, Beijing Rytime Dental Hospital between July 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, were included. The patients were divided into a control group ( Results: After treatment, U1-NA (mm), ∠U1-SN (°), LL-EP (mm), and UL-EP (mm) in the control group were significantly lower than before treatment, and there was no significant difference in other ABO measurement indexes, while the test group showed no marked difference in all ABO measurements between pre- and posttreatment. Further, intergroup comparison showed no significant difference in ABO measurements in pre- and posttreatment between the two groups. The test group had a shorter treatment cycle than the control group, with an average treatment cycle of 21.20 ± 7.14 months in the control group and 17.17 ± 4.16 months in the test group. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the therapeutic effects between the direct and indirect bonding techniques. However, OrthGuide computer-assisted indirect bonding demonstrated a significantly shorter treatment cycle and might be more efficient than traditional direct bonding.
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.