ArticlePloS one2025
Trends in orthodontic scientific contributions: An evaluation based on the American Association of Orthodontists annual sessions.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific contributions (lectures and posters) to the American Association of Orthodontists (AAO) annual sessions from 2013 to 2023 were investigated with the aims of analysing the contributions of each country and their efficiency, presentation trends, and gender differences during these years as well as the most frequent topics and their evolution. Official data were requested from and provided by the AAO secretary. The year and type of presentation; the name, country and gender of the first author; and the full title of the presentation were considered. In addition, six national indicators that could determine the quantity and quality of scientific production were obtained from the Our World in Data website with regard to the countries that made the greatest contributions to the AAO annual sessions. The USA featured the largest number of lecturers (69.44%), while the presentations of posters were more balanced among the 4 countries that exhibited the highest levels of production (i.e., Brazil, the USA, Mexico and South Korea). Brazil was the main country to perform above expectations. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a significant reduction in the number of poster presentations. The male/female ratio was close to 3:1 in terms of lectures and close to 1:1 in terms of posters. In 2023, women presented more posters than did men. The terms clear/aligners and digital were strongly present, and the terms maxillary, adults, and expansion were used increasingly frequently, while the use of the terms brackets or cephalometry decreased. American lecturers included terms that differentiated them from lecturers in other countries. The nationalities of lecturers are not closely related to those of posters, particularly with regard to the USA, Brazil, Canada, Mexico and Turkey. Research spending and economic level are the most significant factors with respect to the type and number of a country's contributions. Concerning gender, a clear imbalance in favour of men persists among lecturers. Increased distance from the USA makes it more difficult for women to serve as lecturers. An emergent paradigm shift in current topics towards a focus on the terms clear/aligners and digital in lectures is evident.
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.