ReviewJournal of orthodontic science2024
Clinical effectiveness of customized versus noncustomized orthodontic appliances: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of orthodontic science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital evaluation with ABO eCRE of treatment quality and efficiency with completely customized lingual and prefabricated vestibular appliances in combined orthodontic-orthognathic therapy: a retrospective cohort study.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Article
- Comprehensive three-dimensional analysis of alveolar bone adaptation and root resorption following premolar extraction in Class II malocclusion: a cohort study.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of lingual versus labial orthodontics on patient comfort and treatment efficiency.Bioinformation · 2026Article
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
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness of treatment with customized compared to noncustomized fixed orthodontic appliances.
methodA comprehensive search was performed using 13 databases until February 20, 2024. Study eligibility criteria were based on studies that compared orthodontic treatment with customized fixed appliances (labial or lingual) with noncustomized appliances. All ages and types of malocclusions were included.
resultsThe search identified 95 studies, of which only four fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three studies compared labial customized brackets with self-ligating brackets, while one study compared lingual customized brackets with labial conventional brackets. There were no significant differences between these systems for treatment duration, outcome, number of appointments, analgesic consumption, patient satisfaction, and the archwire bends requirement. On the other hand, treatment planning was longer and the finishing and detailing phase was shorter in the customized appliances. There was a greater tendency for mandibular incisor proclination and bracket repositioning in the noncustomized appliances group and a greater number of bracket failures, complaints, and requirements for archwire changes in the customized appliances. Qualitative synthesis was applied due to heterogeneity in investigating the difference between the two appliance systems.
conclusionBased on the current limited evidence, the clinical effectiveness of customized and noncustomized orthodontic appliances was similar for the majority of clinical outcomes. Further high-quality clinical studies are required to confirm this finding. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Proper treatment planning and clinical management are the key factors for adequate outcomes apart from the type of appliance used.
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.