ArticleBMC medical education2025
Simplified ABO-OGS orientation improves training of orthodontic bracket positioning for undergraduate dental students.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of the Quality of Orthodontic Treatments Evaluated in Cast and Digital Models According to the ABO-OGS.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
Abstract
backgroundMastery of orthodontic bracket bonding is an essential component of the undergraduate orthodontic curriculum. Traditional bracket bonding training using simple plaster models has some shortcomings, including a disconnect from clinical practice and poor perception of the criteria and accuracy. This study aims to optimize the bracket bonding course by comparing the traditional teaching method with simplified American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS)-oriented training methods.
methodsFourth-year dental students from Fujian Medical University, spanning the 2015 to 2017 cohorts, participated in the orthodontic bracket bonding course. Students from these three cohorts were trained using the traditional plaster model method, the digital 2D ABO-OGS-oriented method, and the typodont ABO-OGS-oriented method, respectively. After the course, students and teachers completed a six-level Likert scale questionnaire to evaluate the teaching objectives, methods, and efficacy.
resultsBoth teachers and students agreed that the traditional bracket bonding training and the simplified ABO-OGS-oriented bracket bonding training were effective, with most students mastering the bracket bonding procedure. The simplified ABO-OGS-oriented bracket bonding was perceived as more novel and engaging compared to the traditional method (P < 0.05). However, the digital 2D ABO-OGS method was significantly less effective than the other two methods (P < 0.05). Instructors rated the typodont ABO-OGS-oriented training higher than the students did (P < 0.05).
conclusionBoth the traditional and simplified ABO-OGS-oriented courses for bracket bonding yielded favorable results, with the simplified ABO-OGS approach being more engaging and innovative. The findings emphasize the critical role of hands-on practice in achieving optimal proficiency in bracket bonding techniques. A hybrid educational model that integrates digital 2D or 3D ABO-OGS-oriented training with offline practical sessions shows considerable potential for qualifying training and examination of orthodontic residency students.
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.