ArticleClinics and practice2024
Computer-Guided Evaluation of the Use of Two Different Devices in the Reduction of Inferior Tooth Crowding.
Article in Clinics and practice, 2024. 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.
- Retrospective Descriptive Case Series on the Use of AMCOPBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLower tooth crowding is considered one of the most common malocclusions in growing patients and due to the potential complications associated with it, it is recommended to intercept this condition as soon as possible. The purpose of this paper is to examine and compare the effectiveness of two different orthodontic devices (elastodontic device and clear aligners) in the treatment of anterior tooth crowding in the jaws of young patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy patients aged between 10 and 16 years with anterior inferior tooth crowding were recruited into this study and divided into case and control groups. The former group comprised 35 patients (15 males and 20 females, average age 10.2 years) who were treated with elastodontic devices (EQ CP series, Eptamed), while the control group consisted of 35 patients (15 males and 20 females, average age 10.5 years) who received aligners (Invisalign). All patients underwent periodic visits after 6 months from the start of treatment (T1) and after 1 year (T2) in which the progress of therapy was evaluated by measuring the inferior intercanine distance using a digital caliper. A parametric ANOVA test was conducted for statistical analysis.
resultsThere is no statistically significant difference between the two groups at either T1 or T2 (
conclusionsBoth elastodontic devices and aligners can be considered as effective tools to successfully conduct inferior expansive treatment for the resolution of tooth crowding; however, the elastodontic devices are considered more comfortable to wear and they are required to be worn for less time during the day.
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.