Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36346338›Full record

SynthesisOral health & preventive dentistry2022

Changes in the Pulp Tissue Complex Induced by Orthodontic Forces: Is There a Need for Concern? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of RCTs and Prospective Clinical Trials.

Isabella Scherer, Giorgos N Tzanetakis, Theodore Eliades, Despina Koletsi

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

4 authors.

Isabella Scherer
Giorgos N Tzanetakis
Theodore Eliades
Despina Koletsi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo identify and assess any changes in the pulp tissue complex following orthodontic force application. MATERIALS AND

methodsPublished and unpublished literature was searched in seven databases until 9 August 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective trials (nR-PCT). Representative key words included 'pulp response', 'pulp tissue', 'orthodontic force', and 'tooth movement'. Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty of evidence assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Random effects meta-analyses with respective confidence intervals (95%CIs) were conducted where applicable.

resultsA total of 363 records were screened, a final number of 24 articles were eligible for qualitative synthesis, while 8 of those contributed to meta-analyses. There was evidence that pulpal blood flow (PBF) decreased after 3 weeks of tooth movement compared to no force application (4 studies, mean difference: -1.68; 95% CI: -3.21, -0.15; p = 0.03). However, this was not the case after 6 months of treatment (p = 0.68). A rise in the activity of aspartate aminotransferase (AST) was detected after 7 days of treatment, but combining 2 studies, this was not statistically significant (p = 0.25). Other outcomes were assessed through single studies. Risk of bias was within the range of 'some concerns/moderate to high/critical overall', while certainty of evidence was low to very low according to GRADE.

conclusionsAs a short-term effect, PBF decreased upon initiation of orthodontic force application, while enzymatic and peptide activity within the pulp was transiently affected. Further long-term evidence of improved quality and certainty is needed.

Indexed as

Dental PulpTooth Movement TechniquesHumansmeta-analysisorthodontic forcepulp tissuesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36346338
PMCPMC11640781

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.