Trial reportJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2024
Effect of micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) on the rate of en masse orthodontic tooth retraction : A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 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
- The efficacy and safety of corticotomy and periodontally accelerated osteogenic orthodontic interventions in tooth movement: an updated meta-analysis.Head & face medicine · 2024Pooled it
- A comparative assessment of orthodontically induced root resorption and alveolar bone changes in adolescent orthodontic patients undergoing Micro-Osteoperforations assisted canine retraction: A Split-Mouth randomized controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Trial
- Review
- Micro-osteoperforation for accelerating orthodontic tooth movement: a meta-analysis of short-term efficacy, safety, and optimal application parameters.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
- Retrospective analysis of mini-implant assisted micro-osteoperforation for accelerating canine movement in adult orthodontics.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Comparison of two micro-osteoperforation protocols using mini-screws on the rate and type of extraction space closure: A randomized clinical trial.Dental research journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the effect of micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) during en masse anterior retraction. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty patients were randomly allocated into experimental and control group of 10 each. In the control group, en masse retraction was performed with sliding mechanics with a coil spring. In the experimental group after alignment and levelling, MOPs were performed mesially and distally to all six anterior teeth in the interdental cortical region on the labial aspect of both arches. MOPs were performed at the beginning of space closure (T
resultsThe overall rate of OTM was significantly greater in the experimental group for both arches in the MOP period (T
conclusionsThe use of MOPs is effective in increasing the rate of en masse tooth retraction in both the maxillary and the mandibular arch. The rate of tooth movement was greater even in the post-MOP period as compared to the control group.
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.