Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2024
Comparison of the effect of clear twin block and traditional twin block on speech: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in The Angle orthodontist, 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.
- Comparison of dental effects of traditional and clear twin block: A randomized clinical trial.Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the effect of clear twin block (CTB) and traditional twin block (TTB) appliances on speech. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this randomized clinical trial, 18 skeletal Class II (Class II, division 1) growing patients were selected and randomly divided into CTB and TTB groups. Objective and semiobjective speech assessment tests were performed for vowel and consonant analyses at four time intervals: before (T0), immediately after (T1), 1 month after (T2), and 3 months after (T3) inserting the appliance. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and independent t-test at the .05 significance level.
resultsIntergroup comparisons showed that the CTB group had less speech distortion immediately after insertion of the appliance (P < .05) than the TTB group; however, the differences were not significant at other time intervals. Intragroup comparisons showed that the number of distortions decreased significantly from T1 to T3 in both groups (P < .05). In contrast to CTB, the T0-T3 comparison was significant in the TTB group.
conclusionsAlthough both appliances had some effects on speech, CTB had less speech distortion immediately after insertion, which is a very crucial moment in patient compliance. Additionally, articulation structures adapted to CTB faster than to TTB.
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.