Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30372126›Full record

Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2019

Mini-implant supported canine retraction with micro-osteoperforation: A split-mouth randomized clinical trial.

Saritha Sivarajan, Jennifer Geraldine Doss, Spyridon N Papageorgiou, Martyn T Cobourne, Mang Chek Wey

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Angle orthodontist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03888560 (Duration Of Lower Labial Segment Alignment With Repeated Micro-Osteoperforations), which is not on this map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03888560 nacompletednot on this map

Duration Of Lower Labial Segment Alignment With Repeated Micro-Osteoperforations: Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of MalayaRan2018 to 2021Enrolled19ConditionsMalocclusionArmsMicro-osteoperforations
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Effect of micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) on the rate of en masse orthodontic tooth retraction : A randomized controlled trial.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2024
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Effects of miniscrew-facilitated micro-osteoperforations on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement : A split-mouth, randomized controlled trial.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2023
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Effects of micro-osteoperforations on intraoral miniscrew anchored maxillary molar distalization : A randomized clinical trial.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2020
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Saritha Sivarajan
Jennifer Geraldine Doss
Spyridon N Papageorgiou
Martyn T Cobourne
Mang Chek Wey
University of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate, using a split-mouth randomized clinical design, the effect of micro-osteoperforation (MOP) on mini-implant supported canine retraction using fixed appliances. MATERIALS AND

methodsThirty subjects (seven males and 23 females) with a mean age of 22.2 (3.72) years were randomized into three canine retraction groups: Group 1 (MOP 4-weekly maxilla/8-weekly mandible; n = 10); Group 2 (MOP 8-weekly maxilla/12-weekly mandible; n = 10) and Group 3 (MOP 12-weekly maxilla/4-weekly mandible; n = 10) measured at 4-week intervals over 16 weeks. Subjects also completed pain (5-point Likert scale) and pain impact (Visual Analogue Scale) questionnaires. The primary outcome was the amount of canine retraction over 16 weeks at MOP (experimental) and non-MOP (control) sites.

resultsMean overall canine retraction was 4.16 (1.62) mm with MOP and 3.06 (1.64) mm without. After adjusting for differences between jaws, all MOP groups exhibited significantly higher canine distalization than the control group: 0.89 mm more (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.19 to 1.59 mm; P = .01) in the MOP-4 group, 1.08 mm more (95% CI = 0.49 to 1.68 mm; P = .001) in the MOP-8 group and 1.33 mm more (95% CI = 0.55 to 2.10 mm; P = .002) in the MOP-12 group. All subjects reported pain associated with MOP with 60% classifying it as moderate and 15% severe. The main impact of this reported pain was related to chewing and speech.

conclusionsMOP can increase overall mini-implant supported canine retraction over a 16-week period of observation but this difference is unlikely to be clinically significant.

Indexed as

CuspidTooth Movement TechniquesAdultBicuspidFaceFemaleHumansMaleMouthYoung AdultAccelerated tooth movementMicro-osteoperforation

Identifiers

PMID30372126
PMCPMC8120871
OpenAlexW2899483248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.