ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2019
Dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes associated with miniscrew anchorage in customized lingual orthodontics.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporary Anchorage Devices in Clear Aligner Therapy: A Systematic Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Micro-implant anchorage in adolescent orthodontics: a promising and advantageous option.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
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
objectivesThe goal of this study was to analyze skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes of patients treated with customized lingual systems and to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of miniscrew anchorage.
methodsNine upper first premolar extraction patients who were treated with customized lingual appliances were included in this study. Miniscrews were used for reinforcement of molar anchorage. Cephalometric films and study models were obtained before treatment (T1), after alignment (T2), and after treatment (T3). Treatment effects were analyzed by cephalometric radiographs and study models.
resultsThe upper anterior teeth were retracted significantly at T2 and T3 (4.41 ± 4.14 mm and 5.51 ± 2.48 mm, respectively). During space closure, the upper first molars showed slight mesial movement (1.50 ± 1.97 mm). The intercanine width of the upper arch increased at T2 (1.59 ± 1.81 mm), but decreased at T3 (0.11 ± 1.00 mm). The sella-nasion-A, A-nasion-B, and mandibular plane angles were not significantly changed at T3. The upper lip showed continuous retraction at both T2 and T3 (1.40 ± 1.46 mm and 2.32 ± 2.48 mm, respectively).
conclusionsBy using miniscrew anchorage for lingual orthodontics, patients' dental and soft tissue changes considerably improved and molar anchorage was reinforced.
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.