ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Efficacy of Fixed Versus Removable Habit-Breaking Appliances for the Management of Non-nutritive Sucking Habits: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-nutritive sucking habits, including thumb, finger, and pacifier sucking, are common self-soothing behaviors in early childhood, and persistence beyond the preschool years is associated with anterior open bite, increased overjet, and altered orofacial function. Interceptive management often involves habit-breaking appliances that may be fixed or removable, yet their relative effectiveness remains debated. This systematic review compared the clinical efficacy of fixed versus removable habit-breaking appliances in achieving habit cessation and correcting associated dentoalveolar discrepancies in children. Electronic searches covering January 2005 to October 2025 identified randomized and prospective clinical studies evaluating these appliances. Outcomes of interest included overbite and overjet changes, skeletal and dentoalveolar effects, habit-cessation rates, and adverse events. A total of 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Fixed appliances, particularly palatal cribs, bonded spurs, and Bluegrass designs, consistently produced faster overbite correction, with mean gains of about 3.0-3.6 mm, and better vertical control than removable devices, while removable appliances achieved comparable improvements mainly when compliance was high. Functional assessments also showed improved tongue posture and pressure patterns following treatment. Reported adverse effects were generally mild and transient, most commonly temporary speech alteration and local irritation. Overall, fixed appliances provide more predictable and efficient correction of malocclusions related to non-nutritive sucking habits, whereas removable appliances can be similarly effective when patient cooperation is strong, supporting early and individualized appliance selection to optimize stability and reduce relapse.
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.