ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2022
Proximity of upper central incisors to incisive canal among subjects with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion in various facial growth patterns.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive three-dimensional analysis of alveolar bone adaptation and root resorption following premolar extraction in Class II malocclusion: a cohort study.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Article
- Article
- Three-dimensional retrospective analysis of root resorption and incisive canal changes following maxillary incisor retraction in class I and class II extraction cases: a comparison of clear aligners and fixed appliances.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Predicting changes of incisor and facial profile following orthodontic treatment: a machine learning approach.Head & face medicine · 2025Article
- Expert consensus on orthodontic treatment of protrusive facial deformities.International journal of oral science · 2025Review
- Comparison of incisive canal remodeling and root resorption in extraction vs. non-extraction fixed orthodontic retraction: a CBCT study.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Radiologic study of the distance between the maxillary central incisor root and the incisive canal according to skeletal malocclusion classification.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Tridimensional Analysis of Incisive Canal and Upper Central Incisor Approximation.International dental journal · 2023Article
- The Assessment of the Rank of Torque Control during Incisor Retraction and Its Impact on the Resorption of Maxillary Central Incisor Roots According to Incisive Canal Anatomy-Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the position of the upper central incisor roots (U1) relative to the incisive canal (IC) among subjects with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion in various facial growth patterns. MATERIALS AND
methods240 cone beam computed tomography images of skeletal Class I and II maxillary or bimaxillary protrusive subjects with a mean age of 23.74 ± 3.73 years were enrolled according to their facial growth pattern. The IC volume was measured using Mimics 21 software (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium). The U1 inter-root distance, width of IC, and their proximity were estimated using Invivo6 software (Anatomage, San Jose, CA).
resultsThe IC volume was slightly greater among the high angle facial group and female patients than the other groups. Overall, the IC width was greater than the U1 inter-root distance in 55.65%, 57.6%, and 65% among the average, low, and high angle facial groups, respectively, and in 56.5% and 62.9% of males and females, respectively. The overall anteroposterior (sagittal) distances between the U1 roots and IC were 4.36 ± 1.18, 4.78 ± 1.17, and 3.83 ± 0.90 mm among the average, low, and high angle facial groups, respectively.
conclusionsThe high angle facial group and female patients showed slightly greater IC dimensions than the other groups. The overall maximum sagittal distances between the U1 and IC were around 5.5, 6, and 4.7 mm among the average, low, and high angle facial groups, respectively. The low angle facial group and male patients tended to have greater sagittal distances. Therefore, the present findings could serve as a guideline when a considerable amount of upper incisor retraction is planned for Class I or II maxillary or bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion patients.
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.