Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2025
Effect of clear aligners and Z-spring appliance on anterior crossbite correction and quality of life in the mixed dentition: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in The Angle orthodontist, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the efficacy of clear aligners and Z-spring (ZS) appliances in treating dental anterior crossbite (AC) during the mixed dentition period. Materials and Methods: Thirty patients (7-12 years) with Angle Class I occlusion and isolated pseudo-Class III AC were randomly assigned to clear aligners (Group A, n = 15) or ZS appliances (Group B, n = 15). Outcomes were evaluated based on duration, cephalometric changes, model analysis, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), assessed using the Child Oral Health Impact Profile-Short Form-19 (COHIP-SF-19). Results: AC was successfully corrected in all patients. Treatment duration was significantly shorter in Group B (48.4 ± 27 days) than in Group A (96.3 ± 22.7 days) (P < .05). U1-NA angle increased by 5.9° and overjet by 4 mm in Group A; in Group B, U1-NA increased by 7.7° and overjet by 4.2 mm (P < .01). Intergroup cephalometric changes (ΔT1-T0) were not significant (P > .05). In Group A, incisal and gingival arch depths increased significantly (2.6 mm and 1.17 mm, respectively; P < .001), whereas no significant changes occurred in Group B (P > .05). COHIP-SF-19 scores were comparable (P > .05). Conclusion: Clear aligners and ZS appliances were effective in treating dental AC, achieving normal overjet relationships. However, ZS appliances may cause greater tipping, whereas clear aligners facilitate tipping, alignment, and bodily movement. Treatments demonstrated comparable effects on OHRQoL of children. This study provides a foundation for future research on different appliances for managing AC in the mixed dentition.
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.