ArticleCureus2023
Comparative Evaluation of Effect of Micro-Osteoperforation and Mechanical Vibration on Rate of Orthodontic Tooth Movement in Young Adults With Bimaxillary Protrusion.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of low frequency vibration on the rate of canine retraction: a randomized controlled clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Micro-osteoperforation for accelerating orthodontic tooth movement: a meta-analysis of short-term efficacy, safety, and optimal application parameters.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate and compare the rate of orthodontic tooth movement and root resorption by micro-osteoperforation (MOP) and mechanical vibration in young adults with bimaxillary protrusion.
methodTwenty patients having class I bimaxillary protrusion who required all first premolar extraction were allocated into two groups MOP (Group A) and mechanical vibration (Group B), with a 1:1 allocation ratio. After leveling alignment MOP was performed on either side of the arch, and vibration was applied on the contralateral side 20 mins per day. Canines were retracted with nickel-titanium coil springs, and Alginate impressions were taken every four weeks till 4 months.
resultThe mean rate of retraction of canines of Group A was more than Group B. There was a statistically significant difference between Group A and Group B. (p=0.0120) Conclusion: The mean rate of retraction of canines treated by MOP was 1.15 mm per 4 weeks, and by mechanical vibration, 0.8mm per 4 weeks.
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.