Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37641723›Full record

ArticleCureus2023

Effectiveness of Flapless Cortico-Alveolar Perforations Using Mechanical Drills Versus Traditional Corticotomy on the Retraction of Maxillary Canines in Class II Division 1 Malocclusion: A Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Doa'a Tahseen Alfailany, Mohammad Y Hajeer, Mohammad Ihsan Al-Bitar, Hallaj I Alsino, Samer T Jaber, Bassel Brad, Khaldoun Darwich

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Doa'a Tahseen AlfailanyDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Damascus, Damascus, SYR.
Mohammad Y HajeerDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Damascus, Damascus, SYR.
Mohammad Ihsan Al-BitarDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Damascus, Damascus, SYR.
Hallaj I AlsinoDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Damascus, Damascus, SYR.
Samer T JaberDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Al-Watanyia Private University, Hama, SYR.
Bassel BradDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Damascus, Damascus, SYR.
Khaldoun DarwichDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Damascus, Damascus, SYR.
Al Wataniya Private University · SY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesBoth invasive and minimally invasive surgical methods have recently gained popularity in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement. Traditional corticotomy (TC) was one of the first effective invasive surgical techniques in shortening orthodontic treatment time, whereas the flapless cortico-alveolar perforations (FCAPs) technique is a modern minimally invasive method that has recently shown good results in different types of orthodontic tooth movement. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of TC versus FCAPs in maxillary canine retraction when treating Class II division 1 malocclusion patients. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis was a single-blinded, single-center, three-arm randomized controlled trial. A total of 51 patients (22 males, 29 females, mean age 20.98 ± 1.95) whose treatment planning included the extraction of maxillary first premolars were enrolled and randomly divided into three groups: the TC group, the FCAPs group, and the control group. The assessed outcomes were the amount of canine retraction, anchorage loss, and canines' rotation, which was evaluated at five-time points till the completion of canine retraction.

resultsThere were statistically significant differences in the amount of canine retraction between the three groups in the first two months (p < 0.001), with greater mean values in the TC group (p < 0.001) in the first month. However, the amount of canine retraction in the FCAPs group was significantly greater in the second month compared to the TC group (p = 0.003) and the control group (p < 0.001). In the first month of canine retraction, anchorage loss, and canine rotation were significantly lesser in the TC and FCAPs groups than in the control group (p < 0.001). On the contrary, the canines' rotation amount after the completion of retraction was greater in the TC group than in the other two groups (p < 0.001).

conclusionTC and FCAPs are efficient adjunctive surgical methods for accelerating canine retraction. At the end of the first month, the TC accelerated canine retraction by 59.85% and FCAPs by 44% compared to the conventional retraction. At the end of the second month, the acceleration was less than recorded in the first month (35.44% and 50.20%, respectively). The acceleration effect of the surgical interventions appeared transient and did not last in the following observation period.

Indexed as

accelerationcanine retractioncanine rotationcortico-alveolar perforationsorthodontic tooth movementorthodontic treatmentrate of orthodontic tooth movementskeletal class ii division 1 malocclusionstudy model analysistraditional corticotomy

Identifiers

PMID37641723
PMCPMC10460508
OpenAlexW4386203189

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.