ArticleBMC oral health2024
Comparison of functional impairments and discomfort with bonded labial and lingual orthodontic appliances - a questionnaire survey.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Research Hotspots and Emerging Trends of Orthodontic-Related Discomfort and Pain: A Bibliometric Review.Pain research & management · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative analysis of lingual versus labial orthodontics on patient comfort and treatment efficiency.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Article
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
objectiveTo compare the levels of functional impairments, discomfort and satisfaction experienced by those treated with full-mouth customized lingual appliances (Lingual appliances), full-mouth self-ligating bracket (Labial appliances), or upper lingual and lower labial appliances (Mixed appliances) using questionnaires. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients within one year of the end of treatment were included in the survey and given a questionnaire concerning different kinds of discomfort and difficulties during the treatment process. The questionnaires focused on the following aspects including speech difficulty, pain (lip, cheek or tongue), difficulty in chewing, difficulty in tooth brushing and overall aesthetics and comfortability. Ordinary one-way ANOVA Tukey's multiple comparison tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests were employed to analyze the data.
resultsA total of 115 patients participated in the study. In terms of functional impairments and discomfort, the rate and degree of speech difficulty was significantly higher in the Lingual appliances Group than that in the Labial appliances Group. But there was no difference among the three groups for difficulty in chewing and tooth brushing. Both lingual and labial appliances caused a similar level of overall pain, however, those treated with lingual appliances experienced more tongue pain, and those treated with labial appliances experienced more cheek and lip pain. The most common sites of irritation were the tongue lateral and tongue tip in the Lingual appliances Group, tongue lateral and cheek in the Mixed appliances Group, and cheek and lower lip in the Labial appliances Group. In total, patients gave highest scores to mixed appliances for comfortability and lowest scores to labial appliances for aesthetics when it came to satisfaction.
conclusionsLingual and labial appliances caused similar level of overall pain. Taking into account the overall comfortability, aesthetics and cost, the mixed appliances may be suitable for some patients who have aesthetic and comfort pursuits.
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.