ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2012
Do sand blasted with large grit and acid etched surface treated mini-implants remain stationary under orthodontic forces?
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Volumetric Evaluation of Buccal Soft Tissue Contour Using Customized Healing Abutment During Immediate Implant Placement with Connective Tissue Grafting. a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Implants Placed Without Bone Grafts in Two Different Sinus Floor Elevation Techniques. A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surface Treatment of Dental Mini-Sized Implants and Screws: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Review
- Control of anterior segment using an antero-posterior lingual sliding retraction system: a preliminary cone-beam CT study.Progress in orthodontics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the positional stability of sand blasted, large grit, and acid-etched (SLA) surface-treated mini-implants (C-implants) used as the exclusive source of anchorage during en masse retraction. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective clinical investigation was performed comparing pretreatment cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images with those taken after en masse retraction of the six anterior teeth. Force was applied to 16 C-implants (1.8 mm in diameter, 8.5 mm in length) placed between the upper second premolars and first molars. Three-dimensional superimposition of CBCT data using mutual information was used to evaluate the positional difference of C-implants between preretraction and postretraction CBCT data.
resultsThere was no significant difference in mini-implant position between the preretraction and postretraction CBCT evaluation.
conclusionsThe SLA-coated C-implant provides stationary anchorage as well as stable anchorage during orthodontic tooth movement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.