ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2023
Evaluation of maxillary canine and molar movement during the first phase of extraction space closure: a multilevel analysis.
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative evaluation of the efficiency of segmental maxillary canine retraction using Burstone T-loops versus elastomeric chains: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2025Trial
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study was designed to analyze and compare the cusp and apex movements of the maxillary canines and first molars during canine retraction in the first step of extraction space closure, and to evaluate if these teeth follow a curvilinear (acceleration and/or deceleration) movement rate. MATERIAL AND
methodsTwenty-five patients (23.3 ± 5.1 years of age) were enrolled. The retraction of the maxillary canines was accomplished using nickel-titanium closed coil springs (100gf) on 0.020-in stainless steel archwire. Oblique cephalograms were traced and superimposed on the anatomic best fit of the maxilla (before the retraction [T0], and after one month [T1], three [T3], five [T5] and seven [T7] months). Statistics was based in a normally distributed data. Multilevel procedures were used to derive polynomials for each of the measurements. Student's t-test and one-way repeated measures ANOVA were conducted. The level of significance of 5% was adopted.
resultsCanine cusps and apexes did not follow a quadratic curve regarding horizontal movement (neither accelerate nor decelerate). Canine and molar cusps showed more horizontal movement than apexes (4.80 mm vs. 2.78 mm, and 2.64 mm vs. 2.17 mm, respectively).
conclusionsCanine did not accelerate or decelerate overtime horizontally; the cusps and apexes of the canines and molars showed more horizontal movement and larger rate at the beginning of canine retraction, followed by significantly smaller and constant movement rate after the first month.
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.