ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2026
Esthetic evaluation of treatment strategies for missing maxillary lateral incisors.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate esthetic outcomes of four treatment options for missing maxillary lateral incisors-canine substitution, canine substitution with buildup, resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs), and dental implant-and to compare with a control group with sound lateral incisors after orthodontic treatment. Materials and Methods: A total of 144 digital intraoral photographs from clinical expert archives was analyzed, including the control group. Esthetic outcomes were assessed using ImageJ software based on the recurring esthetic dental (RED) proportion, vertical position, black triangles, gingival zenith, color, and apparent contact dimension (ACD). Statistical analyses were conducted to identify significant differences among groups. Results: RED proportion was more favorable in both canine substitution groups than with RBFDPs. Vertical position favored RBFDP over canine substitution with buildup. Black triangles were less frequent in both canine substitution and the control group than with RBFDPs. Gingival zenith was less favorable in both canine substitution groups than the control and with RBFDPs. The control group showed best color outcomes, outperforming all treatment groups except for dental implant. ACD central-lateral incisors was better in the canine substitution with buildup and control group than canine substitution without buildup. ACD lateral incisor-canine was superior in both canine substitution and control groups than with RBFDPs and dental implants. Conclusions: No single treatment excelled across all parameters, emphasizing the need for individualized treatment plans based on patient priorities. Collaborative decision-making is crucial for optimizing esthetic outcomes.
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.