Trial reportDental press journal of orthodontics2022
Effect of micro-osteoperforations on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement and expression of biomarkers: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Micro-Osteoperforations on Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International dental journal · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness of adjunctive interventions in patients undergoing rapid maxillary expansion: An umbrella review.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Pooled it
- The effect of micro-osteoperforations on the rate of maxillary incisors' retraction in orthodontic space closure: a randomized controlled clinical trial.Progress in orthodontics · 2024Trial
- Biomarkers for Treatment Response in Orthodontics: Molecular Mechanisms, Clinical Utility, and Future Directions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Micro-osteoperforations' impact on orthodontic tooth movement rate: Split mouth research.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Assessing the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive surgical techniques in enhancing orthodontic tooth movement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of orthodontic science · 2026Review
- Comparative assessment of the rate of maxillary canine retraction using micro-osteoperforation and low-level laser therapy : A split mouth study.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2025Article
- Effects of Micro-Osteoperforation Depths on Canine Retraction Rate and Root Resorption: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.European journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Article
- Integrated bioinformatic analysis of protein landscape in gingival crevicular fluid unveils sequential bioprocess in orthodontic tooth movement.Progress in orthodontics · 2024Review
- Effect of Mini-implant assisted Micro-osteoperforation on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement-A randomized clinical trial.Journal of orthodontic science · 2023Article
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
introductionMicro-osteoperforation is a minimally invasive technique that has been used to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement and reduce treatment duration. However, literature presents conflicting reports about this technique.
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of micro-osteoperforations on the rate of canine retraction and expression of biomarkers in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF).
methodsThis was a randomized clinical trial with split-mouth study design. Thirty adult subjects with age above 18 years (20.32 ± 1.96) who required fixed orthodontic treatment and extraction of maxillary first premolars were enrolled and randomly allocated to either the experimental or control group. Randomization was performed by block randomization method, with a 1:1 allocation ratio. The experimental group received three micro-ostoperforations (MOPs) distal to maxillary canine, using the Lance pilot drill. The retraction of maxillary canine was performed with NiTi coil-spring (150g) in both experimental and control groups. The primary outcome was the evaluation of canine retraction rate, measured on study models from the baseline to 16 weeks of canine retraction. Secondary outcomes were the estimation of alkaline and acid phosphates activity in GCF at 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks.
resultsThere was a statistically significant difference in the rate of canine retraction only after the first 4 weeks. Subsequently there was no statistically significant difference from the eighth to the sixteenth weeks between MOPs and control group. There was a statistically significant difference in alkaline and acid phosphates activity in GCF between MOPs and control groups during the initial 4 weeks of canine retraction.
conclusionMicro-ostoperforation increased the rate of tooth movement only for the first 4 weeks; thereafter, no effect was observed on the rate of canine retraction during 8, 12 and 16 weeks. A marked increase in biomarker activity in the first month was observed.
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.