ArticleProgress in orthodontics2026
Digital evaluation with ABO eCRE of treatment quality and efficiency with completely customized lingual and prefabricated vestibular appliances in combined orthodontic-orthognathic therapy: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Progress in orthodontics, 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
backgroundPrecise orthodontic pre-surgical decompensation is a critical prerequisite for optimal outcomes in orthognathic surgery. However, the relative effectiveness of completely customized lingual appliances (CCLAs) versus prefabricated vestibular multibracket appliances (PVMAs) remains insufficiently established. This study compared the decompensation efficiency, treatment quality, and overall clinical performance of these two appliances. METHODOLOGY: The study included 60 consecutive patients who underwent orthodontic-orthognathic surgery: 30 with CCLA and 30 with PVMA. To ensure quality, the digital ABO CRE for each scanned model was evaluated using OnyxCeph3™ diagnostic software, and the efficiency of each appliance was recorded in the respective patient files. Both groups underwent the same evaluation protocol involving initial, intermediate (pre-surgery) and final casts. An additional set-up model was included for the CCLA group only.
resultsBoth groups exhibited comparable baseline scores (mean difference 5.83; 95% CI 1.69 to 9.98). CCLAs demonstrated lower ABO scores than the PVMA group after the decompensation phase (mean difference - 9.23; 95% CI -13.38 to -5.09) and in the final assessment (mean difference - 9.30; 95% CI - 13.44 to -5.16). The largest differences between groups were observed for the alignment criteria in both jaws at the intermediate and final assessments, as well as for all intermaxillary criteria. Treatment efficiency particularly during the decompensation phase, was significantly improved in the CCLA group.
conclusionCCLAs demonstrated superior efficiency and higher treatment quality compared with PVMAs in patients undergoing combined orthodontic-orthognathic therapy. The use of CCLAs in combination with orthognathic surgery appears to represent a high-quality treatment approach for correcting pronounced skeletal discrepancies and may serve as a reliable alternative to PVMA in appropriately selected patients.
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.