Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2013
Effect of 980-nm diode laser-aided circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy on fluorosed root surfaces.
Trial report in The Angle orthodontist, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diode Laser versus Conventional Surgical Circumferential Supracrestal Fiberotomy in Preventing Relapse of Orthodontically Derotated Teeth: A Randomised Control Trial.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2023Article
- TAD's for the Derotation of 90° Rotated Maxillary Bicuspids.Case reports in dentistry · 2021Article
- Rotational relapse of anterior teeth following orthodontic treatment and circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy.The Saudi dental journal · 2020Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate and compare the root surface morphological changes after 980-nm diode laser-aided circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy (CSF) on fluorosed and non-fluorosed teeth. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe sample comprised 27 orthodontic patients (14 males and 13 females; mean age = 17.3 years) with and without fluorosis, from whom 40 fluorosed and 40 non-fluorosed premolar teeth were extracted for orthodontic reasons. Conventional (control group) and laser-aided (experimental group) CSF was performed on fluorosed and non-fluorosed teeth indicated for orthodontic extraction, using a scalpel and a 980-nm diode laser at 2.5 W power, respectively. Subsequently, teeth were extracted, sectioned, and examined by scanning electron microscope to assess the ultrastructural changes.
resultsThere were differences in surface morphology among fluorosed and non-fluorosed roots in the control group. The root specimens of both fluorosed and non-fluorosed teeth irradiated by diode laser exhibited no evidence of smear layer, laser-induced pitting or cavitation, linear cuts/markings, carbonization of surface, and heat-induced surface cracking. However, a glazed or slightly melted appearance was observed in root specimens of fluorosed teeth after diode laser irradiation.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that the diode laser-aided CSF procedure is free from thermal hazard on non-fluorosed root surfaces but may provoke some thermal changes on fluorosed root surfaces.
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.