↓ Skip to main content

Are there differences in treatment effects between labial and lingual fixed orthodontic appliances? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Oral Health, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Are there differences in treatment effects between labial and lingual fixed orthodontic appliances? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Oral Health, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12903-017-0424-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fadi Ata-Ali, Teresa Cobo, Felix De Carlos, Juan Cobo, Javier Ata-Ali

Abstract

An evaluation is made of possible differences in treatment effects between labial and lingual fixed appliances. A comprehensive search was made of the PubMed-Medline, Cochrane Library and LILACS databases, with an additional manual search covering the period up until April 2017. There were no restrictions in terms of year of publication or language. Agreement between the authors was quantified by the Cohen kappa statistic. A random-effect model was applied to calculate weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. A total of 249 patients corresponding to four eligible studies were included in the systematic review. Among the six angles and distances entered in the meta-analysis, a tendency was observed in lingual appliances to increase the interincisal angle (95% CI -0.80-8.99; p = 0.101) and reduce the angle between the major axis of upper central incisor and the sellar-nasion plane - though statistical significance was not reached (95% CI -5.75-0.32; p = 0.079). The results obtained indicate that treatment with lingual appliances favors incisor tipping by exerting lingual crown torque, but there are no differences in cephalometric values between labial and lingual fixed appliances. Because of the small number of included studies, the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution. Future research should focus on the generation of a consensus document allowing selection of the type of orthodontic approach not only conditioned to the esthetic requirements of the patient but also considering the characteristics of the malocclusion. On the other hand, standardized international guidelines are lacking; the measurements of angles and distances therefore have to be unified with a view to future investigations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 36 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 44%
Engineering 2 2%
Sports and Recreations 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 38 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2018.
All research outputs
#4,064,922
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#229
of 1,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,638
of 437,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#6
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,490 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,841 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.