ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2023
Evaluation of the Difference in the Rate of Canine Retraction Assisted by Piezocision and Discission in Human Subjects: A Preliminary Parallel-Arm Prospective Clinical Study.
Article in Turkish 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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the rate of orthodontic tooth movement assisted by piezocision and discission in extraction cases. Methods: Twelve adults (20-35 years) requiring upper premolar extraction for orthodontic treatment were included in this preliminary parallel-arm clinical study. Participants (randomly allocated) in Groups A and B received piezocision and discision-assisted corticotomy cuts at the premolar extraction site, respectively, contralateral side served as the control. Canine retraction was started bilaterally using closed coil NiTi (Nickel titanium) springs. A schedule of fortnightly activation was followed for 3 months. Stage models were made monthly (M0, M1, M2, M3). Models were scanned using a 3-shape intraoral scanner, and the displacement of the canine was measured bilaterally in the stage models. A self-designed questionnaire was used to assess patients pain and satisfaction levels on a visual analogue scale. Results: The rate of canine retraction at the piezocision site was twice that at the control site in group A (p=0.007). The rate of canine retraction at the dissection site was twice that at the control site in group B (p=0.012). However, there was no significant difference in the rate of retraction between the two surgical techniques. Pain and disturbance were noticed in the discission group at 50 and 67% respectively. Conclusion: Discision is comparable to piezocision for accelerating orthodontic tooth movement. Although dissection can speed orthodontic treatment, it should be used with caution as it could pose technical and clinical difficulties, particularly in the posterior buccal region of the oral cavity.
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.