Trial reportPeerJ2024
Comparative
Trial report in PeerJ, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was threefold. Firstly, it aimed to introduce and detail a novel method for chemically etching the bases of stainless-steel orthodontic brackets. Secondly, the study sought to investigate the structural alterations within the brackets' microstructure following chemical etching compared to those with sandblasted bases, using electron microscopy analysis. Lastly, the study aimed to evaluate and compare the long-term durability and survivability of orthodontic brackets with chemically etched bases Methods: The study was a randomized clinical control trial with triple blinding and split-mouth study design and consisted of two groups. The brackets in the sandblasted group were prepared by sandblasting the intaglio surface of the base of the bracket with 50 µm SiO Results: A total of 5,803 brackets (3,006 acid-etch, 2,797 sandblasted) in 310 patients were bonded, in a split-mouth design by the same operator. The patients were followed for 18 months. The failure rate of 2.59% and 2.7% was noted in an acid-etched and sandblasted group, respectively. There was a close approximation of curves in the Kaplan-Meier plot, and the survival distribution of the two groups in the log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test was insignificant; x2 = 0.062 ( Conclusion: Acid etching if the bases of the brackets can be used as an alternative to sandblasting furthermore acid etching can be performed on the chair side.
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.