Frontiers in oral health · 2026
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.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Coronel-Zubiate Franz Tito, Arbildo-Vega Heber Isac, Cruzado-Oliva Fredy Hugo, Aguirre-Ipenza Rubén, Vásquez-Rodrigo Hernán, Luján-Valencia Sara Antonieta, Meza-Málaga Joan Manuel, Luján-Urviola Eduardo, Farje-Gallardo Carlos Alberto, Castillo-Cornock Tania Belú
Аннотация
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.
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.