ReviewCureus2024
Implications of Lingual Orthodontics Compared to Conventional Orthodontics.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bracketless three-dimensional orthodontic treatment using coated nickel-titanium E-wires for mild-moderate anterior crowding: A case report with 6-month follow-up.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Dietary changes in patients with clear aligners compared with fixed orthodontic appliances during the early stages of orthodontic treatment: A systematic review.Korean journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of lingual versus labial orthodontics on patient comfort and treatment efficiency.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Review
- Energy drink-induced white spot lesions on labial and lingual tooth surfaces in adolescents treated with lingual appliances: a retrospective cohort study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Fe leaking from orthodontic appliances affects buccal enamel more than lingual during in vitro experiment.Scientific reports · 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
In orthodontics, the treatment plan and the impact of orthodontic appliances on patients' aesthetic appearance have significantly influenced patients' aesthetic demands over time. Patients considering orthodontic treatment are very concerned about the potential compromise in facial appearance that conventional orthodontic treatment could cause. Lingual orthodontics offers an aesthetically pleasing appearance compared to conventional orthodontic systems, addressing the growing demand for inconspicuous treatment options. This review examines the implications of lingual orthodontics compared to conventional orthodontics, focusing on aesthetics, oral health outcomes, and patient satisfaction. The benefit of lingual brackets is that when positioned on the teeth's lingual surfaces, they are almost undetectable. However, they are associated with increased difficulty in oral hygiene maintenance due to their placement, leading to higher plaque accumulation that causes compromised periodontal health. Conversely, studies show a lower incidence of white spot lesions on lingual surfaces compared to buccal surfaces, suggesting a reduced risk of caries. Challenges with lingual systems include increased tongue discomfort and speech difficulties. Despite these challenges, lingual orthodontics demonstrates favourable outcomes for patients prioritising aesthetics. Future advancements should focus on improving appliance designs to enhance patient comfort and oral hygiene accessibility, ensuring optimal treatment outcomes. Interdisciplinary collaboration and comprehensive oral hygiene education are essential to maximise the benefits of lingual orthodontics.
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.