Trial reportClinical oral investigations2023
A comparison between two orthodontic archwire sequences in terms of speed of alignment and root resorption: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare between two archwire (AW) sequences in terms of alignment speed and root resorption (RR). MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty-four patients (14 males, 40 females) requiring orthodontic treatment were randomly allocated into two groups; in group A (mean age 18.3) treatment started with 0.014″ nickel titanium (NiTi) followed by 0.019″×0.025″ NiTi AW while group B (mean age 18.9) the AW sequence was 0.014″ NiTi, 0.018″ NiTi, 0.016″×0.022″ NiTi, 0.019″×0.025″ NiTi. The primary outcome was to compare the alignment speed of the crowded upper and lower teeth between the two different AW sequences. The secondary outcome was to assess the magnitude of upper and lower incisors' root resorption (RR) measured by digital periapical radiographs taken at the start of treatment and 1 month after the placement of the working AW. t-test was used to compare the alignment speed and RR between the two groups. Statistical significance was predetermined at the P ≤ 0.05 level for all tests.
resultsThe 54 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either group. Seven patients were excluded and complete data were obtained for 47 patients; 24 and 23 patients in group A and group B, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the alignment speed in the lower arch (P>0.05, mean difference=-0.44, 95% CI=-0.9 to 0.03) and root resorption (P>0.05). Alignment of upper arch was faster in group A (P < 0.0001, mean difference= - 0.9, 95% CI =-1.4 to -0.5).
conclusionsThere is no significant difference between the two groups in the alignment speed in the lower arch and incisors' RR. Upper arch alignment was faster in group A.
trial registrationNot registered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37530893What 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.