Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32039085›Full record

ArticleJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry

The Effectiveness of Micro-osteoperforations during Canine Retraction: A Three-dimensional Randomized Clinical Trial.

Basema Alqadasi, Khalid Aldhorae, Esam Halboub, Nasrin Mahgoub, Akram Alnasri, Ali Assiry, Hou Y Xia

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Basema AlqadasiDepartment of Orthodontics, Hospital of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Khalid AldhoraeDepartment of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Thamar University, Thamar, Yemen.
Esam HalboubDepartment of Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Science, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Nasrin MahgoubDepartment of Dentistry, First affiliated Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Akram AlnasriDepartment of Orthodontics, Hospital of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Ali AssiryDepartment of Preventive Dental Sciences, Najran University, Najran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Hou Y XiaDepartment of Orthodontics, Hospital of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimA major challenge in orthodontics is decreasing treatment time without compromising treatment outcome. The purpose of this split-mouth trial was to evaluate micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement. MATERIALS AND

methodsEight patients of both genders were selected, age ranging between 15 and 40 years, with Class II Division 1 malocclusion. The participants in this trial with MOPs were randomly allocated to either the right or the left side, distal to the maxillary canine. First maxillary premolars were extracted as part of the treatment plan on both sides and then canine retraction was applied. Miniscrews were used to support anchorage. MOP side received (three small perforations) placed on the buccal bone, distal to the maxillary canine, on randomly selected side using an automated mini-implant driver and the other side was the control side. Blinding was used at the data collection and analysis stages. The primary outcome was the rate of canine retraction measured with a three-dimensional (3D) digital model from the baseline to the first 2 weeks superimposed at the rugae area from the baseline to the first, second, and third months. The following secondary outcomes were examined: anchorage loss, canine tipping, canine rotation, root resorption, plaque index, and gingival index. Pain level, pain interference with the patients' daily life, patients' satisfaction with the procedure and degree of ease, willingness to repeat the procedure, and recommendation to others were also evaluated.

resultsNo statistically significant difference was observed in the rates of tooth movement between the MOP and the control sides at all-time points (first month:

conclusionAccording to our clinical trial, MOPs cannot help in speeding up a canine retraction.

Indexed as

Accelerating tooth movementcementoenamel junctionmarginal bone crestmicro-osteoperforation

Identifiers

PMID32039085
PMCPMC6905307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.