Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32699355›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Comparative assessment of mouse models for experimental orthodontic tooth movement.

Christian Kirschneck, Maria Bauer, Joshua Gubernator, Peter Proff, Agnes Schröder

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. [Cells · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christian KirschneckDepartment of Orthodontics, University Medical Centre of Regensburg, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. christian.kirschneck@ukr.de.
Maria BauerDepartment of Orthodontics, University Medical Centre of Regensburg, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.
Joshua GubernatorDepartment of Orthodontics, University Medical Centre of Regensburg, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.
Peter ProffDepartment of Orthodontics, University Medical Centre of Regensburg, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.
Agnes SchröderDepartment of Orthodontics, University Medical Centre of Regensburg, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.
University of Regensburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal experiments are essential for the elucidation of biological-cellular mechanisms in the context of orthodontic tooth movement (OTM). So far, however, no studies comparatively assess available mouse models regarding their suitability. OTM of first upper molars was induced in C57BL/6 mice either via an elastic band or a NiTi coil spring for three, seven or 12 days. We assessed appliance survival rate, OTM and periodontal bone loss (µCT), root resorptions, osteoclastogenesis (TRAP

Indexed as

Alveolar Bone LossAnimalsBone RemodelingCathepsin KMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLModels, AnimalMolarOrthodontic BracketsOsteoclastsOsteogenesisRoot ResorptionTooth Movement TechniquesX-Ray MicrotomographyCathepsin KCtsk protein, mouse

Identifiers

PMID32699355
PMCPMC7376195
OpenAlexW3044370922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.