Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41467575›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2025

Evaluation of Bracket Positioning; A Customized System Versus the Conventional Method.

Kübra Sucu, Mete Özer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Kübra SucuVocational School of Health Services, University of Health Sciences, İstanbul, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0002-4546-3119
Mete ÖzerOndokuz Mayıs University Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Samsun, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0002-7229-9393

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the positioning of brackets in customized and conventional bonding methods in accordance with Andrews' approach to bracket placement. Methods: Twenty-six patients were enrolled; 11 were treated with the Insignia system and 15 with Kalange's method. Crown length was measured on a digital diagnostic model and the facial axis (FA) point was calculated. After leveling and alignment, a new digital model was created, and the bracket position was measured along the vertical axis. The distance between the bracket position and the FA point was calculated, and the deviation was determined according to Andrews' method. Teeth with significant deviation (TSD), i.e., >0.5 mm, were identified. Frequencies and percentages of TSD were calculated. Results: The TSD percentage was 56.65% in the Insignia group and 69.5% in the modified Kalange group; the difference between groups was significant (p=0.003). The anterior and posterior regions differed significantly within groups: in the Insignia group, this difference was observed in the maxilla (p=0.002), whereas in the modified Kalange group it was observed in both the mandible and maxilla (P < 0.001). In both groups, the anterior TSD percentage was higher than the posterior TSD percentage in both the maxilla and the mandible. The deviation was predominantly occlusal or incisal: Insignia group, 86.9%; modified Kalange group, 97.6%. Conclusion: In the Insignia system and Kalange's method, brackets are positioned more incisally/occlusally relative to Andrews' FA point. In both methods, anterior brackets are positioned more incisally than posterior brackets.

Indexed as

AndrewsBracket placementInsigniaKalange

Identifiers

PMID41467575
PMCPMC12758432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.