Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2024
Comparison of the effectiveness of piezocision-aided canine retraction augmented with micro-osteoperforation: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in The Angle orthodontist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acceleration of canine retraction with conventional versus modified piezocision techniques : A randomized controlled clinical trial.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of micro-osteoperforation (MOP) on the rate of piezocision-aided canine retraction (CR). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe split-mouth study included 25 participants at the stage of commencing CR. The participants received flapless piezocision bilaterally at T0 (0 months) and MOP only on one side at T3 (3 months). The quadrant that received MOP at T3 served as the intervention, whereas the other quadrant served as the control. The primary outcome was the rate of CR, assessed using digital models. The angular change (AC) of the canine and the change in the buccal cortical bone thickness (BCBT) from before to after CR were also assessed using cone beam computed tomography.
resultsThe rate of CR was 0.82 ± 0.39 mm/month in the control quadrant vs 0.75 ± 0.44 mm/month in the intervention quadrant (P > .05). The AC of the canine was 2.00° ± 0.88° in the control quadrant vs 1.98° ± 0.86° in the intervention quadrant (P > .05). The crestal bone gain was 0.50 mm in the control quadrant vs 0.28 mm of bone loss in the intervention quadrant. The bone thickness at a 3-mm height was increased by 0.11 mm in the control quadrant vs a 0.29-mm decrease in the intervention quadrant. The bone thickness at a 6-mm height was decreased by 0.12 mm in the control quadrant vs a 0.15-mm decrease in the intervention quadrant. However, none of the changes or group differences in bone height or thickness were statistically significant (P > .05).
conclusionsThe periodic activation of a piezocision-aided CR site using MOP had no significant positive effect on the rate of CR, angulation of the canine, or changes in BCBT.
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.