ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2024
The second molar dilemma in orthodontics: to bond or not to bond?
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2024. 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
objectivesTo compare orthodontic treatment (OT) outcome in adolescents undergoing nonextraction fixed OT with or without bonding of second molars using the score of the American Board of Orthodontics Cast Radiograph Evaluation (C-R-Eval). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study included healthy adolescents with skeletal Class I or mild Class II/Class III malocclusion, normal or deep overbite (OB), and mild-to-moderate dental crowding (<5 mm) who underwent nonextraction fixed OT with ("bonded" group) or without ("not-bonded" group) bonding of second molars. Patient treatment records, pre- and posttreatment digital models, lateral cephalograms, and orthopantomograms were assessed. The evaluated outcomes included leveling of the curve of Spee (COS), OB, control of incisor mandibular plane angle (IMPA), number of emergency visits (related to poking wires and/or bracket failure of the terminal molar tubes), treatment duration, and C-R-Eval. Treatment variables were compared across time points and among groups.
resultsThe sample included 30 patients (mean age 16.07 ± 1.80 years) in the bonded group and 32 patients (mean age 15.69 ± 1.86 years) in the not-bonded group. The mean overall C-R-Eval score was significantly higher (P < .001) in the not-bonded group (25.25 ± 3.98) than in the bonded group (17.70 ± 2.97). There were no significant differences in mean changes of COS, OB, IMPA, or treatment duration among groups. The mean number of emergency visits was significantly higher in the bonded (3.3 ± 0.6) than the not-bonded group (1.9 ± 0.4) (P < .001).
conclusionsBonding of second molars enhances the outcome of nonextraction fixed OT as demonstrated by the C-R-Eval without increasing treatment duration, irrespective of more emergency visits.
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.