SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Arch perimeter changes with passive self-ligating bracket system: a systematic review and meta analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo determine and compare arch perimeter changes obtained with and between passive self-ligating bracket systems and conventional bracket systems.
methodsA thorough search in six databases up to January 11th, 2025 was done with no restriction of date. Prospective and retrospective studies that evaluated the arch perimeter changes with and between passive self-ligating (PSL) and conventional brackets. Quality assessment was done using the ROB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. A standard random-effects model was used in this review for analysis.
resultsSearch identified twelve studies on arch perimeter changes with and between passive self-ligating (PSL) and conventional brackets. Eight studies were included in the quantitative analysis. Qualitative analysis indicated that arch perimeter increase was achieved with both conventional and passive self-ligating systems with no significant difference between the two. Meta-analysis indicates that there was an arch perimeter increase of 2.57 mm (0.29, 4.85) in the maxilla and 1.57 mm (-0.27, 3.41) in the mandible with passive self-ligation. However, when compared with the conventional system, the difference in arch perimeter gain was 0.09 mm (mean - 1.69, SD -1.88) in the maxillary arch and - 0.5 mm (-3.47, 2.43) in the mandibular arch. The difference was not significant.
conclusionBoth conventional and self-ligation systems increased arch perimeter. However, the arch perimeter changes between the two bracket systems were not clinically or statistically significant. The hypothesis that self-ligating systems have a greater increase in arch perimeter is not based on evidence. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.