ArticleRevista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)
Perception
Article in Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur). 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Orthodontists' perception of bracket techniques plays a significant role in planning, allowing critical evaluation of the patient's facial aesthetics. Objective: To compare the perception of Peruvian orthodontists regarding treatments with self-ligating and conventional brackets. Methods: A questionnaire was applied to 168 orthodontic specialists (53% men, average professional experience 9 years) to evaluate preferences for treatment phases, benefits of patient consultation according to the type of bracket, experience with self-ligating brackets, and demographic and clinical characteristics (sex, years of experience, volume of care and length of experience). The Kruskal-Wallis Test and Chi-square test were used with P < 0.05. Results: The total preference for self-ligating brackets (48.9%) was higher than conventional brackets (18.8%). Self-ligating brackets were preferred in most treatment phases (46.4%-63.7%) but not in completion and finishing, in which conventional brackets were preferred. Most orthodontists preferred self-ligating brackets (40.5%-60.7%) over conventional brackets (4.2%-14.3%) due to patient comfort, oral hygiene, and total treatment and appointment time control, but not the cost. The orthodontists reported SLB having mastered their technique in <10 cases (59.5%), the experience of <2 years (45.2%), applying control times of 4-9 weeks (78.6%), and feeling comfortable with their use (89.3%). Preferences were not associated with sex ( Conclusions: Peruvian orthodontists preferred self-ligating brackets over conventional brackets in most treatment phases associated with user comfort and oral hygiene management and treatment/control time, and professional experience. However, some factors, such as cost-effectiveness, counteracted this preference.
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.