Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36254137›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2022

Dynamics, Efficacies, and Adverse Effects of Maxillary Full-Arch Intrusion Using Temporary Anchorage Devices (Miniscrews): A Finite Element Analysis.

Marzieh Mazhari, Mashallah Khanehmasjedi, Mohsen Mazhary, Nastaran Atashkar, Vahid Rakhshan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Marzieh MazhariDepartment of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6251-0469
Mashallah KhanehmasjediDepartment of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9537-5339
Mohsen MazharyDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, ACECR Institute for Higher Education, Ahvaz, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3911-553X
Nastaran AtashkarDepartment of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2162-0658
Vahid RakhshanDepartment of Anatomy, Dental School, Azad University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9503-3133

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Absolute anchorages obtained from temporary anchorage devices (TADs, miniscrews) considerably facilitate dental movements and make some very difficult movements such as full-arch intrusions possible. Despite the significance of assessing strategies to fully intrude the arch using mini-implants, there is no study in this regard except a few case reports. Therefore, we simulated/tested 4 scenarios. Methods: Four maxilla models were created with different miniscrews/appliances: (1) two miniscrews were placed distal to laterals and one in the mid sagittal region. (2) Two mini-implants were inserted in mesial of canines and 2 others between bilateral first and second molars, plus another TAD in the midpalatal area, plus a transpalatal arch (TPA). (3) Two mini-implants were inserted between bilateral canines and first premolars and 2 others between bilateral first and second molars + TPA. (4) Two mini-implants were installed between lateral-and-canine and 2 miniscrews between second premolars and first molars + TPA. Intrusive forces (80 g anterior, 150 g posterior) were exerted using stainless-steel coil springs. Stresses/displacements were measured. Risk of external root resorption was evaluated. Results: The highest amounts of incisor/molar intrusion were seen in model 1. Model 2 had fewer intrusions, but its control over undesired movements was greater. Model 4 drastically reduced molar intrusion and considerably increased premolar intrusion. Overall amounts of intrusion were highest in the first 2 models, marking them as proper candidates for cases needing greater intrusion extents. Model 2 may be useful when miniscrew loosening/failure is a concern, while model 1 is recommended when fewer miniscrews are allowed. Overall, the highest and lowest root resorptions might occur in models 1 and 4, respectively. Conclusions: Each model showed certain efficacies/drawbacks and thus is recommended for a particular set of cases. Therefore, depending on the diagnosis and treatment plan, one or more of these scenarios might be desirable.

Indexed as

Orthodontic Anchorage ProceduresRoot ResorptionBone ScrewsFinite Element AnalysisHumansMaxillaSteelTooth Movement TechniquesSteel

Identifiers

PMID36254137
PMCPMC9569208

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.