ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Comparative assessment of corticotomy facilitated rapid canine retraction using piezo versus bur: A randomized clinical study.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Efficacy of Traditional Corticotomy and Flapless Piezotomy in Facilitating Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy of reticulated surgical guide vs. dynamic navigation to prevent periodontal tissue overheating during piezocision using thermography: a randomized pilot clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Trial
- Single-cell sequencing decodes the secrets of the RAP phenomenon of corticotomy.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Flapless Corticotomy with Low-Level Laser Therapy in En Masse Retraction of Upper Anterior Teeth: A Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial.Clinics and practice · 2023Article
- Review
- The transparency of reporting 'harms' encountered with the surgically assisted acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement in the published randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological study.Progress in orthodontics · 2023Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe leading concern of orthodontic patients is prolonged treatment with fixed appliances and demand speedy treatment from the orthodontists. Piezocision is a relatively innovative, safe and reliable technique of corticotomy in the domain of surgically-accelerated orthodontic treatment. Our aim was to compare the efficiency of piezo corticotomy (piezocision) and conventional bur in rapid orthodontic tooth movement (OTM). SUBJECTS AND
methodThe study employed a randomized, double-blind, split-mouth design. 24 subjects with Class II div 1 malocclusion were randomly assigned to the two interventions, viz; piezo and bur group. The primary parameters evaluated were the rate and amount of tooth movement and total treatment time required for canine retraction. Additionally, the duration of surgery and postoperative complications were also evaluated. OBSERVATIONS AND
resultsRate and amount of tooth movement were significantly higher with reduction in total treatment time in piezo compared to bur group. The duration of surgery was significantly longer in piezo group with no significant difference observed in post-operative complications.
conclusionPiezo-guided corticotomy was effective in providing rapid OTM with profound reduction in total treatment time and may be proposed as a suitable adjuvant to conventional corticotomy having comparable post-operative complications.
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.