ArticleBMC oral health2023
Evaluation of cuspid cortical anchorage with different sagittal patterns using cone-beam computed tomography: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo studies have focused on cortical anchorage resistance in cuspids, this study aimed to characterize the cortical anchorage according to sagittal skeletal classes using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
methodsCBCT images of 104 men and 104 women were divided into skeletal class I, II, and III malocclusion groups. Skeletal and dental evaluations were performed on the sagittal and axial cross-sections. One-way analysis of variance followed by least significant difference post-hoc tests was used for group differences. Multiple linear regression was performed to evaluate the relationship between influential factors and cuspid cortical anchorage.
resultsAll cuspids were close to the labial bone cortex in different sagittal skeletal patterns and had different inclinations. There was a significant difference in the apical root position of cuspids in the alveolar bone; however, no significant difference in the middle or cervical portions of the root was found between different sagittal facial patterns. The middle of the cuspid root was embedded to the greatest extent in the labial bone cortex, with no significant difference between the sagittal patterns. For all sagittal patterns, 6.03 ± 4.41° (men) and 6.08 ± 4.45° (women) may be appropriate root control angles to keep maxillary cuspids' roots detached from the labial bone cortex.
conclusionsComparison of skeletal class I, II, and III malocclusion patients showed that dental compensation alleviated sagittal skeletal discrepancies in the cuspid positions of all patients, regardless of the malocclusion class. Detailed treatment procedures and clear treatment boundaries of cuspids with different skeletal patterns can improve the treatment time, periodontal bone remodeling, and post-treatment long-term stability. Future studies on cuspids with different dentofacial patterns and considering cuspid morphology and periodontal condition may provide more evidence for clinical treatment.
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.