Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41091659›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of orthodontics2025

Duration of fixed appliance treatment using 0.018-inch slot versus 0.022-inch slot brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mumen Z Rizk, Hisham Mohammed, John Samy, Grant McIntyre, David Bearn

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of orthodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mumen Z RizkPrivate Practice, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0003-3550-7162
Hisham MohammedSchool of Dentistry, University of Queensland, QLD 4006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1201-4736
John SamyPrivate Practice, Cairo, Egypt.
Grant McIntyreSchool of Dentistry, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HR, United Kingdom.
David BearnSchool of Dentistry, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HR, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe duration of fixed orthodontic appliance treatment is a major concern for both patients and clinicians. A lengthy treatment increases the likelihood of iatrogenic effects and burdens patient compliance.

objectivesThe primary aim of this review is to compare the duration of orthodontic treatment between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot brackets. Furthermore, the quality of treatment, iatrogenic effects, and patient perception will be explored as secondary outcomes. SEARCH

methodsAn unrestricted comprehensive search was undertaken on six electronic databases updated up to May 2025. Moreover, ongoing and unpublished studies were searched on relevant sources. The reference lists of retrieved studies were screened for potential studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomized studies (NRS) with parallel-arm design were selected for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study selection, bias assessment, and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers, and inconsistencies were resolved by a third reviewer. Quantitative analyses were undertaken for comparable studies presented as a random-effects model along with its 95% confidence intervals (CI). Additional sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed. The generated summary effect was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

resultsTwelve articles involving nine unique studies (six RCTs and three NRS: 832 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The total duration of treatment did not differ between the bracket slot systems (standardized mean difference: -0.23; 95% CI: -0.68 to 0.23; I2: 24%; 4 studies; low level of evidence). Qualitative analysis revealed no significant differences between the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot brackets regarding the quality of treatment outcomes, iatrogenic treatment effects, or patient-related outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Differences in reporting and clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis for the secondary review outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Within the limitations of this systematic review, there is some low-quality evidence suggesting that bracket slot size does not significantly impact orthodontic treatment in terms of duration, treatment outcomes, or patient-centred variables. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019121569.

Indexed as

Orthodontic Appliance DesignOrthodontic Appliances, FixedOrthodontic BracketsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime Factorsbracket slot sizefixed appliancesorthodontic treatment duration

Identifiers

PMID41091659
PMCPMC12525148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.