Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39052179›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2024

Comparative assessment of the clinical outcomes of clear aligners compared to fixed appliance in class II malocclusion.

Ruwa Irsheid, Lucas Da Cunha Godoy, Chia-Ling Kuo, John Metz, Calogero Dolce, Sarah Abu Arqub

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ruwa IrsheidDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.
Lucas Da Cunha GodoyConnecticut Convergence Institute for Translation in Regenerative Engineering, UConn Health, Farmington, CT, USA.
Chia-Ling KuoConnecticut Convergence Institute for Translation in Regenerative Engineering, UConn Health, Farmington, CT, USA.
John MetzDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.
Calogero DolceDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.
Sarah Abu ArqubDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA. super_orthodontist@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study compared clinical outcomes between aligners and fixed appliances in class II adolescent patients. MATERIALS AND

methodsRecords of 31 aligners and 35 fixed class II patients, aged 13.5 ± 1.6 years were compared. Class II elastics was the mechanism employed for correcting the malocclusion. DI scores were used to compare initial complexity, and the PAR index scores were used to compare the clinical outcomes. Data on demographics, treatment and finishing durations, number of visits and refinements, duration of class II correction, and changes in the IMPA were collected.

resultsThe mean pre-, post-treatment, and overall reduction in PAR index scores between the groups were not significantly different (P > 0.05). The clear aligners group had significantly shorter treatment duration (20.0 ± 11.6 months) than the fixed group (27.4 ± 9.1 months) (P < 0.001). The number of visits for the aligners' group was significantly less (12.7 ± 6.2) than in the fixed group (17.8 ± 5.8) (P < 0.001). Duration for class II correction was significantly shorter for clear aligners (13.3 ± 10.0 months) compared to the fixed group (17.4 ± 9.0 months) (P = 0.026). A smaller post-treatment change in IMPA (2 ± 6°) was detected in the aligners group compared to the fixed group (5 ± 6°) (P < 0.05).

conclusionsTreatment outcomes for aligners in class II adolescent patients were comparable to those achieved in fixed appliances. Shorter treatment and class II correction durations, fewer visits, and better control for the IMPA were noticed in the aligners' group. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Treating class II adolescent patients with aligners seems promising and demands shorter treatment time and fewer visits.

Indexed as

Malocclusion, Angle Class IIOrthodontic Appliances, FixedAdolescentChildFemaleHumansMaleOrthodontic Appliance DesignOrthodontic Appliances, RemovableRetrospective StudiesTooth Movement TechniquesTreatment OutcomeClass II elasticsClass II malocclusionClear alignersFixed appliances

Identifiers

PMID39052179

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.