ArticleJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2021
Comparison of tooth movement and biological response resulting from different force magnitudes combined with osteoperforation in rabbits.
Article in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the effects for root resorption in orthodontic tooth movement with micro-osteoperforations in mice.Journal of dental sciences · 2025Article
- Micro-Osteoperforations Induce TNF-α Expression and Accelerate Orthodontic Tooth Movement via TNF-α-Responsive Stromal Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- The effect of micro-osteoperforations on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement in animal model: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare tooth movement rate and histological responses with three different force magnitude designs under osteoperforation in rabbit models. METHODOLOGY: 48 rabbits were divided into three groups: Group A, Group B, and Group C, with traction force of 50 g, 100 g, 150 g, respectively. Osteoperforation was performed at the mesial of the right mandibular first premolar, the left side was not affected. One mini-screw was inserted into bones between two central incisors. Coil springs were fixed to the first premolars and the mini-screw. Tooth movement distance was calculated, and immunohistochemical staining of PCNA, OCN, VEGF, and TGF-β1 was analyzed.
resultsThe tooth movement distance on the surgical side was larger than the control side in all groups (P<0.01). No significant intergroup difference was observed for the surgical side in tooth movement distance among the three groups (P>0.05). For the control side, tooth movement distance in Group A was significantly smaller than Groups B and C (P<0.001); no significant difference in tooth movement distance between Group B and Group C was observed (P>0.05). On the tension area of the moving premolar, labeling of PCNA, OCN, VEGF and TGF-β1 were confirmed in alveolar bone and periodontal ligament in all groups. PCNA, OCN, VEGF and TGF-β1 on the surgical side was larger than the control side in all groups (P<0.001).
conclusionOsteoperforation could accelerate orthodontic tooth movement rate in rabbits. Fast osteoperforation-assisted tooth movement in rabbits was achieve with light 50 g traction.
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.