Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35204928›Full record

ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Is Orthodontic Treatment with Microperforations Worth It? A Scoping Review.

Cinzia Maspero, Annalisa Cappella, Claudia Dolci, Maria Grazia Cagetti, Francesco Inchingolo, Chiarella Sforza

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Laser Surgical Approach of Upper Labial Frenulum: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Innovative Application of Diathermy in Orthodontics: A Case Report.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  11. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cinzia MasperoDepartment of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5930-1698
Annalisa CappellaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4527-4203
Claudia DolciDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3060-4097
Maria Grazia CagettiDepartment of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy.
Francesco InchingoloDepartment of Interdisciplinary Medicine, Università degli Studi di Bari "Aldo Moro", 70124 Bari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3797-5883
Chiarella SforzaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6532-6464
University of Milan · ITUniversity of Bari Aldo Moro · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Malformations of teeth and dental arches can produce functional modifications intermingled with esthetic alterations. Children's rehabilitation may be long, requiring multiple interventions. One of the main challenges of contemporary orthodontics is to reduce treatment time by accelerating orthodontic tooth movements. Among the currently used methods, micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) are flapless, minimally invasive perforations that induce a local trauma to the bone, increase healing capacity, and accelerate dental movements. The use of MOPs in orthodontics is spreading but there are no definite and recognized protocols for their application. This scoping review collected the available evidence in the effect of MOPs during orthodontic therapy as compared to current treatments, to summarize the evidence. The guidelines proposed by PRISMA-ScR were followed: original clinical studies carried out from 2010 to 2021 were retrieved by medical databases combining the terms "micro-osteoperforations" and "accelerated orthodontic tooth movement". From a total of 965 articles, nine were finally selected. The studies' aims, designs, methods, measurements, outcomes, and main findings were very heterogenous, with a duration ranging from 4 weeks to 7 months. This included only Class I malocclusion to any malocclusion. It assessed the effects of MOPs coupled with a variety of orthodontic mechanics on either the retraction of maxillary canines, the distalization of maxillary molars, or the modifications on premolar roots. Mostly, variations in the number, location, and timing of MOPs impeded a global assessment. Overall, most of the studies (six out of nine) reported moderately useful effects of MOPs, one was negative, and only two found significant advantages of MOPs over conventional treatment. The review synthesized the available evidence about MOP applications in orthodontics and identified some important gaps in knowledge that could be starting points for a systematic review of the literature. In conclusion, even if MOPs can accelerate tooth movements, the variety of aims and methods of the published research prevents suggestion of their widespread use.

Indexed as

micro-osteoperforationsorthodontic treatmentPRISMA GuidelinesRCTssplit mouth

Identifiers

PMID35204928
PMCPMC8870353
OpenAlexW4210430168

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.