Trial reportProgress in orthodontics2022
Three-dimensional evaluation of maxillary tooth movement in extraction patients with three different miniscrew anchorage systems: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Progress in orthodontics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methods of incisor inclination control during the non-accelerated retraction of upper anterior teeth with fixed orthodontic appliances: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Tridimensional Analysis of Maxillary Teeth Movements in Premolar-Extraction Cases Treated With Clear Aligners.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Evaluation of external apical root resorption and apical root displacement in maxillary molars with different sinus-root relationships by cone-beam computed tomography.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Measurement of orthodontic tooth movement in lower anterior teeth by means of magnetic resonance imaging- a prospective pilot study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Second Versus First Molar Extractions in Class II Division 1 Malocclusion Treatment: A Retrospective Longitudinal Outcome Study into Maxillary Canine, Premolar, and Molar Movement.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Biomechanical analysis of total arch maxillary distalization using infrazygomatic crest miniscrews: a finite element analysis study.Progress in orthodontics · 2024Article
- Evaluation of stress and displacement of maxillary canine during the single canine retraction in the maxillary first premolar extraction cases- A finite element study.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Long-term bone remodeling of maxillary anterior teeth with post-treatment alveolar bone defect in adult patients with maxillary protrusion: a prospective follow-up study.Progress in orthodontics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the three-dimensional (3-D) movement of maxillary teeth in response to three common miniscrew anchorage systems in extraction patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study employed a randomized controlled single-blinded design with three arms. Thirty extraction patients who required maximum anchorage to retract maxillary anterior teeth were included and randomly allocated into three treatment groups: space closure with direct miniscrew anchorage and low crimpable hooks (DL group), indirect miniscrew anchorage and low crimpable hooks (IL group), and direct miniscrew anchorage and high crimpable hooks (DH group). Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of all included patients were obtained immediately before (T0) and after (T1) space closure. The outcomes were 3-D positional changes of maxillary central incisor, lateral incisor, canine, second premolar, and first molar. The repeated measures analysis of variance with post hoc LSD test was used to evaluate differences among groups.
resultsA significant intrusion (- 1.34 mm; 95% CI, - 1.60 mm, 1.08 mm) and buccal (- 6.92°; 95% CI, - 8.67°, - 5.13°) and distal (4.90°; 95% CI, 3.75°, 6.04°) inclination of the maxillary first molars were observed in the DL group, compared to the other two groups. The mesial movement (- 0.40 mm; 95% CI, - 0.83 mm, - 0.03 mm) of the maxillary first molars was found in the IL group, while the DL (0.44 mm; 95% CI, 0.15 mm, 0.73 mm) and IL (0.62 mm; 95% CI, 0.28 mm, 0.96 mm) groups exhibited distal movement. In the DH group, the lingual inclination changes of maxillary central incisor (5.04°; 95% CI, 2.82°, 7.26°) were significantly lower, which is indicative of good lingual root torque control of the maxillary anterior teeth.
conclusionThree miniscrew anchorage systems produced significantly different 3-D maxillary tooth movement. The maxillary first molars were significantly buccally and distally inclined and intruded in patients using direct miniscrew anchorages with low crimpable hooks. Direct miniscrew anchorages with high crimpable hooks could help to achieve better lingual root torque control of the maxillary incisors. Trial registration The trial was registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR1900026960). Registered 27 October 2019.
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.