ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
The effects of conventional and self-ligating bracket systems on dental arch changes and tooth movement during levelling and aligning: digital approach.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the effects of Damon Ultima, Damon Q2, and conventional bracket systems on maxillary dentoalveolar structures and the amount of tooth movement. METHODOLOGY: A total of 60 patients (24 males, 36 females) were treated with conventional, Damon Q2, and Damon Ultima brackets (20 patients per group). Intraoral scans were performed with iTero Element™ 2 before treatment, after using round archwires (12 weeks), and after using angular archwires (8 weeks). Arch length, intercanine and intermolar distances, tooth rotation, bucco-lingual inclination (BLI), and angulation changes were analyzed with a 3D accuracy program (Geomagic Control X 2022, 3D Systems, USA). Comparative analyses between the groups were conducted using a one-way ANOVA (p < 0.05).
resultsIn the intercanine and intermolar distance, significant differences were found (p < 0.05); however, in the arc length values, no difference was found between the groups (p = 0.270). In BLI and angulation changes, significant differences were observed between the groups. In the angulation movement of the incisor and premolar teeth, there was a significant difference in the Damon Q2 group (p = 0.021). In BLI movement of the incisors, there was significantly higher differences in the Damon groups (p = 0.001). No difference was observed between the groups (p > 0.05) in rotation movement.
conclusionInter-canine and inter-molar distance changes were significant in both Damon systems. BLI and angulation movements of premolars, as well as angulation movements of incisors, were effectively measured. No significant movements were observed in other tooth groups with different brackets.
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.