Trial reportDental press journal of orthodontics2022
Comparison of second molar protraction using different timing for piezocision application: A randomized 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Spontaneous space closure after extraction of permanent first molars in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of orthodontics · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluation of the Efficacy of Corticotomy and Piezocision on Canine Retraction: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare second molar protraction between early, late and no piezocision groups. MATERIAL AND
methodsForty subjects with bilaterally extracted mandibular first molars were selected to participate in the study. Subjects were subdivided into two groups: piezocision and no piezocision. The piezocision group was further subdivided into two subgroups: early piezocision (piezocision performed immediately before second molar protraction) and late piezocision (piezocision performed three months after starting molar protraction). In the no piezocision group, molar protraction was done without surgery. The intervention (piezocision group and timing of piezocision/side within group) was randomly allocated using the permuted random block size of 2, with 1:1 allocation ratio. The amount of second molar protraction, duration of space closure and anterior anchorage loss were measured. A repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to define the differences between the measured variables at the different time intervals. Differences between groups were assessed using ANOVA test.
resultsNo difference was detected between early and late piezocision groups in the amount of molar protraction at the end of space closure. Duration of complete space closure was 9 and 10 months in the piezocision and no piezocision groups. Anchorage loss was similar between the three studied groups.
conclusionsEarly and late piezocision have similar effect and both increased the amount of second molar protraction temporarily in the first 2-3 months after surgery. Duration of mandibular first molar space closure was reduced by one month when piezocision was applied. Anchorage loss was similar in the three groups.
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.