Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32095922›Full record

Trial reportJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2020

Effects of micro-osteoperforations on intraoral miniscrew anchored maxillary molar distalization : A randomized clinical trial.

Kemal Gulduren, Hayriye Tumer, Ulas Oz

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kemal GuldurenDepartment of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Near East University, Nicosia, Northern Cyprus. kemal.gulduren@neu.edu.tr.
Hayriye TumerDepartment of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Near East University, Nicosia, Northern Cyprus.
Ulas OzDepartment of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Near East University, Nicosia, Northern Cyprus.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim was to study the effects of micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) on miniscrew-supported maxillary molar distalization.

methodsAs part of a single center, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial, 20 eligible subjects were randomly recruited from patients who had applied to the orthodontics department of a university dental hospital. In the experimental group, subjects were randomized to receive MOPs to either the left or right maxillary molar region (n = 10). The control group (n = 10) and the contralateral sides of the experimental group (n = 10) did not receive any MOPs. In both groups, distalization of the maxillary molars was performed by miniscrew-supported distalization appliances. Using 3D models, maxillary molar distalization at 3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks was measured. Pain, discomfort, eating difficulty, and speech problem levels were assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS 0-10). Periodontal evaluations were performed.

resultsIn all, 18 subjects completed the study. The mean amount of tooth movement was significantly greater on the MOP side compared to contralateral side of the experimental group at all time points. After 12 weeks, the maxillary molars on the MOP side moved 1.17-fold more than those on the contralateral side. No significant differences were found regarding amount of tooth movement between the control group and the MOP and contralateral sides of the experimental group. The rates of tooth movement in the MOP sides of the experimental group, contralateral sides of the experimental group, and the control group were 0.029, 0.025, and 0.028 mm/day, respectively. Pain VAS scores after intervention were significantly increased on the MOP side compared with the contralateral side of the experimental group but not at any other time point. No differences in periodontal scores between the groups were observed.

conclusionsA 1.17-fold increase in the rate of tooth movement in the MOP group compared with the contralateral side was recorded. However the accelerating effect of MOPs was lower than expected. The mean pain level was statistically greater in the MOP group compared to the contralateral side only on the first day of application.

Indexed as

Malocclusion, Angle Class IITooth Movement TechniquesCephalometryFaceHumansMaxillaMolarMouthAccelerated tooth movementAdultsHumansTooth distalizationTreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID32095922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.