Trial reportActa odontologica Scandinavica2026
The effects of headgear treatment timing on costs and orthodontic outcome: a follow-up study.
Trial report in Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 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
objectiveTo analyze the effects of cervical headgear (CHG) timing on costs and orthodontic outcome. MATERIAL AND
methodsSixty-seven participants with Class II malocclusion were randomized into two groups. In the early group (EG, n = 33), CHG treatment began after the eruption of first upper molars. In the later-timed group (LG, n = 34), CHG treatment began nearly 2 years later. Orthodontic outcome was evaluated when CHG ended and at the end of follow-up using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index and Little's Irregularity Index (LII). Costs were calculated using medical records, estimated chairside times and average personnel and material costs.
resultsThe mean total costs including personnel and material costs during the follow-up were higher in the EG (€416) compared with the LG (€364) (p = 0.043). No statistically significant differences between the groups were found in the PAR and in the LII scores at the end of follow-up. The number of visits during CHG treatment was higher in the EG (13.3) compared with the LG (10.4) (p = 0.01).
conclusionsEarlier initiation of CHG treatment increased the personnel and material costs, number of appointments, and chairside time. Based on the PAR and in the LII scores, the orthodontic outcome of CHG treatment was equal regardless of the timing of the treatment. If orthodontic treatment during mixed-dentition stage is considered, it would be justified from an economic perspective to favor treatment during late mixed-dentition.
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.