Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41452800›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology2025

Orthodontic treatment planning in cleft and craniofacial patients with clear aligners: burden of care and informed consent.

Maria Costanza Meazzini, Claudia De Gennaro, Corinne Poli, Leonardo Paolo Demonte, Francesco Daleffe, Giorgio Novelli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Maria Costanza MeazziniDepartment of Maxillo-facial surgery, Regional Centre for CLP, Santi Paolo e Carlo Hospital, Operation Smile, Milano, Italy.
Claudia De GennaroDepartment of Maxillo-facial surgery, Regional Centre for CLP, Santi Paolo e Carlo Hospital, Operation Smile, Milano, Italy.
Corinne PoliDepartment of Maxillo-facial surgery, Regional Centre for CLP, Santi Paolo e Carlo Hospital, Operation Smile, Milano, Italy.
Leonardo Paolo DemonteDepartment of Maxillo-facial surgery, Regional Centre for CLP, Santi Paolo e Carlo Hospital, Operation Smile, Milano, Italy.
Francesco DaleffeDepartment of pediatric Maxillo-facial surgery, Sant'Anna Hospital Como,Italy.
Giorgio NovelliDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan-Bicocca. Operative Unit of Maxillo-Facial Surgery ASST Grande Ospedale Niguarda Milano Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOrthodontic treatment in cleft lip and palate and craniofacial anomalies is complex and requires a multidisciplinary approach. There are often multiple possible treatment plans. To properly explain and discuss the various options, such as management of frequently missing incisors or the choice between orthognathic surgery and dental compensation, assessment of burden of treatment must be made and adequately communicated to the patients and families. PATIENTS AND

methods105 patients affected by cleft lip and palate and craniofacial anomalies were retrospectively collected and divided into two groups. The first group included patients whose orthodontic diagnosis involved missing elements, where treatment could be either space closure or space opening. The second group included patients with skeletal discrepancies, who could be treated with dental compensation ​or with orthognathic surgery. For all patients of both groups two different virtual treatment plans with the Clin Check® software were developed, corresponding to the different treatment possibilities. Clinical aspects which might have influenced treatment choice, such as treatment time, need for extractions, need for prosthetic replacements and need for cooperation were quantified. Logistic regression and Fisher exact test were applied to assess which aspects of treatment led patients to one of the different binary solutions.

resultsLength of treatment was not an aspect which differed between choices, while the need for high cooperation and need for tooth extractions were. The clear explanation and visual description of advantages and disadvantages of a treatment, seem to help patients in the selection of the expected solution in terms, not only of final occlusal and aesthetic result, but also in terms of burden of care. Though far from sufficient, the visual tool aids patients and families to take an "informed" decision, with significant legal inferences. Embracing these principles is essential to meet legal standards and foster trust, helping patients make well-informed decisions that align with their personal values and clinical needs. This approach not only respects patient autonomy but also reduces the risk of non-compliance, emotional strain, and potential legal issues, ultimately leading to better therapeutic outcomes and stronger clinician-patient relationships.

Indexed as

Cleft LipCleft PalateCraniofacial AbnormalitiesInformed ConsentOrthodontics, CorrectivePatient Care PlanningAdolescentAdultChildFemaleHumansMaleOrthognathic Surgical ProceduresRetrospective StudiesYoung AdultBurden of careClear alignersCleft lip and palateInformed consentVirtual planning

Identifiers

PMID41452800
PMCPMC12906362

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.