ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2024
Fluctuating arch symmetry: a comparison of two methods of assessment - applicability and efficiency.
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 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
introductionSymmetry is balance, some correspondence in the size, form, and arrangements of parts on opposite sides of a plane, line, or point. The opposite of this concept is asymmetry, or imbalance.
objectiveThis retrospective study compared two methods for assessing arch symmetry with linear measurements based on triangles, to determine their applicability and efficiency.
methodsTwo groups were enrolled: children (n=20) and adults (n=20), and the arch symmetry was assessed from linear measurements. Method 1: the incisor-canine (INC), canine-molar (CM), and incisor-molar (INM) distances (paired t-test and Pearson correlation). Method 2: a mathematical equation between the cusps measurements of the canines and the distobuccal of the first molars leading to result 1 (t-test for one sample and bootstrapping analysis). Dental casts were digitized and analyzed using a software program. The Bland-Altman test compared the methods (α=0.05).
resultsThe Bland-Altman test revealed concordance between the methods; however, separately the results were different: In method 1, the mandibular arch did not demonstrate correlation (children, INC r=0.33; CM r=0.45; INM r=0.51; adults, CM r=0.46; INM r=0.35), however, the maxilla revealed a strong correlation in children and a strong/moderate correlation in adults. In method 2, both arches were symmetrical (p>0.05).
conclusionMethod 1 may be appropriate during orthodontic treatment, and method 2 may be indicated for final treatment. These methods are useful; however, only method 1 identified the side of asymmetry. The methods can contribute to future studies in syndromic and non-syndromic patients, before and after orthognathic surgeries and orthodontic treatment, comparing results.
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.