Trial reportInternational dental journal2024
Treatment of Class II Malocclusion With Orthodontic Microimplant Anchorage.
Trial report in International dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relationship between different skeletal patterns and basal arch widths in adults with class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion: a retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- The Efficacy of the RME II System Compared with the Sander Bite-Jumping Appliance: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- [Periodontic-orthodontic-orthognathic combined treatment of adult Class Ⅱ skeletal malocclusion with idiopathic gingival fibromatosis: a case report].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2025Article
- Clinical efficacy of micro-implant anchorage in orthodontic treatment.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe objective of the study was to compare the effects of orthodontic microimplant anchorage (MIA) and conventional extraoral arch anchorage (EAA) on tooth structure and oral inflammatory response in patients with Class II Division I malocclusion.
methodsA total of 104 patients with Class II malocclusion were enrolled and were randomly assigned to receive MIA or EAA treatments. Clinical efficacy was assessed at 6 months after treatment by measuring molar shift, convex distance, and hinge angle difference between maxillary and mandibular incisors. X-ray was performed for tissue evaluations. The levels of cell adhesion molecule-1 (CAM-1), matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2), and proinflammatory cytokines in gingival sulcus fluid were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to assess inflammatory responses to the implants.
resultsOur study demonstrated superior efficacy of MIA compared to EAA in terms of overall efficacy, molar shift, convex distance between upper and middle incisors, as well as hinge angle difference between upper and middle incisors. MIA also showed greater efficacy in reducing tissue fix-point measurements, including saddle point-nasal root point-superior alveolar seat point (SNA), alveolar seat point-nasal root point-inferior alveolar seat point (ANB), overlying (OJ), and overbite (OB).
conclusionsMIA is a novel orthodontic treatment that showed stronger efficacy in inducing molar shift and correcting soft/hard tissue positions, whilst generating suppressed inflammatory responses. Our study could have significant implications for practice in the orthodontic treatment of Class II malocclusion.
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.