ArticleClinical oral investigations2023
Evaluation of the relationship between incisor torque and profile aesthetics in patients having orthodontic extractions compared to non-extractions.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Efficacy of the RME II System Compared with the Sander Bite-Jumping Appliance: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The effectiveness of anterior unilateral bite turbos in correcting incisal plane cant and asymmetric overbite: a prospective clinical study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Efficacy of Corticotomy and Piezocision on Canine Retraction: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Soft-tissue modification in Class III non-growing patients treated with clear aligners: a prospective clinical trial.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Article
- Dietary and complementary oral supplements for the management of chronic diseases in children: a systematic review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
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
objectiveThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the relationship between soft tissues aesthetics and incisor torque, as well as the effect of crowding, anchorage, and extraction pattern, in adult patients treated without extraction or with two or four extractions. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy-seven subjects with permanent dentition were selected retrospectively. Among these, 24 patients were treated with four extractions, 24 with two extractions and 29 without extractions. Lateral cephalograms and photographies taken before (T0) and after (T1) treatment were retrieved. The amount of crowding and the type of anchorage were recorded, and a cephalometric analysis was performed. A one-way ANOVA was used to compare the variables within and between groups. Linear regressions were performed to evaluate the effect of different predictors on soft tissues variables at T1.
resultsThe statistical analysis showed no differences within and between groups for soft tissue aesthetics. A significant reduction of the angle obtained from the intersection of Frankfurt plane and mandibular plane was observed in the four-extractions group, and a significant proclination of the lower incisors was observed in the two-extraction group. Linear regressions revealed that the change in soft tissue profile aesthetics was affected by the type of anchorage and the two-extractions pattern.
conclusionsSimilar soft tissue aesthetics were observed after treatment in the three groups, despite the presence of some skeletal and dental differences. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A well-controlled incisor torque helps to preserve soft tissues aesthetics. The type of anchorage could influence soft tissues.
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.