ReviewFrontiers in oral health2026
Haptic technology in orthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond the typodont: deliberate practice, experiential learning, and feedback in postgraduate orthodontic education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tactile feedback through haptic technology is increasingly being applied in orthodontic education and selected clinical workflows, but its overall effectiveness has not been comprehensively synthesized. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the evidence on haptic and virtual reality technologies in orthodontic training and practice. In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic search of multiple databases was conducted from inception through October 2025. Nine studies met the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome-based eligibility criteria. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate effect sizes (Hedges' g), and subgroup analyses were undertaken to explore heterogeneity. The pooled effect size was large and statistically significant (g = 1.40, 95% CI: 0.82-1.98, Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420251246154, PROSPERO 2025 CRD420251246154.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.