SynthesisFrontiers in oral health2026
Clinical effectiveness of 0.018-inch vs. 0.022-inch bracket slot size in fixed orthodontic treatment: a systematic review and critical appraisal of the evidence.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oral health, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dentofacial malocclusion is a global public health concern and the third most prevalent oral condition after caries and periodontal disease. This systematic review evaluated the impact of bracket slot size (0.018 vs. 0.022-inch) on clinical efficacy (quality of finishing), tooth movement efficiency (treatment duration and alignment speed), and biosafety in patients treated with fixed orthodontic appliances. Material and methods: Randomized clinical trials were identified through comprehensive searches in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scielo, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar up to January 2026. Studies comparing 0.018- and 0.022-inch slot brackets and reporting clinical effectiveness, efficiency, or biosafety outcomes were included. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0, and certainty of evidence was evaluated with the GRADE approach. Due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity among included studies, a statistically and clinically meaningful meta-analysis was not feasible, and results were synthesized narratively, incorporating a structured critical appraisal of the available evidence. Results: Of 835 records screened, nine RCTs met the inclusion criteria. No significant clinical differences were observed between bracket slot sizes regarding overall treatment duration, leveling efficiency, or final treatment quality. Although the 0.018-inch system required one fewer visit to complete alignment, this difference lacked clinical relevance. No significant differences in biological risks were identified. Higher comfort and improved quality of life were reported with 0.022-inch low-friction systems. Evidence certainty was low to very low for most outcomes. Conclusions: Based on current evidence, no clinically relevant differences exist between 0.018- and 0.022-inch slot brackets across most evaluated orthodontic outcomes. The overall certainty of evidence is low, and findings should be interpreted with caution. This review provides a structured critical appraisal of the available data, which may assist clinicians in making evidence-based decisions regarding bracket selection. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024509885, PROSPERO CRD42024509885.
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.