ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Comparative Analysis of Braces and Aligners: Long-Term Orthodontic Outcomes.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Relapse in Orthodontic Treatment in Pediatric Patients: A Clinical Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Assessment of Outcomes in Patients who Underwent Traditional and Advanced Orthodontic Treatment: A Comparative Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Comparison of Aligners and Braces in Angle's Class III Malocclusion Cases: A Clinical Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Factors Influencing the Predictability and Success of Invisalign Aligners: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of smart and traditional braces in orthodontic treatment efficiency.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Application of a 3D fusion model to evaluate the efficacy of clear aligners: A clinical study.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Effect of clear aligners and fixed appliances among orthodontic patients: A comparative study.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Linking ABO blood group with angle's classification and malocclusion severity in orthodontic patients: A cross-sectional study.Bioinformation · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the long-term results of orthodontic treatment with traditional braces and Invisalign, with a particular emphasis on treatment length, patient satisfaction, correction of malocclusion, and long-term stability. Methods: Between 2020 and 2022, individuals who had orthodontic treatment at a tertiary care center had their data analysed. Patients with mild to severe malocclusions treated with conventional braces or Invisalign between the ages of 12 and 18 met the inclusion criteria. Assessments were done on results, length of treatment, degree of malocclusion, and long-term stability. With significance set at Findings: The mean treatment time for Invisalign was much shorter (18 months) than for conventional braces (24 months) ( Conclusion: In conclusion, Invisalign showed a much shorter treatment period than conventional braces, yet both showed excellent malocclusion correction. The choice of modality should be based on patient satisfaction, treatment objectives, and case complexity, taking into account the trade-offs between treatment length and potential variations in long-term stability.
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.