ArticleCureus2024
Clinical Evaluation of Single Versus Repeated Micro-Osteoperforations During Orthodontic Canine Retraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07658235 (Micro-osteoperforation Versus Photobiomodulation Therapy for Accelerating Maxillary Canine Retraction), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 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.
Micro-osteoperforation Versus Photobiomodulation Therapy for Accelerating Maxillary Canine Retraction: A Three-Arm Parallel Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect of Micro-Osteoperforations on Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International dental journal · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Research progress in periodontally accelerated osteogenic orthodontics.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn the majority of orthodontic premolar extraction cases, the canine retraction phase is the most laborious procedure. This randomized clinical trial aimed to assess the effect of single versus repeated micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) during orthodontic canine retraction.
methodsIn this split-mouth study, two equal groups of 18 patients who required maxillary first premolar extractions and fixed orthodontic therapy were randomly assigned (n=9). In Group I, MOPs were only performed once on one site before retraction, whereas in Group II, MOPs were performed on one site repeatedly once a month for four months. In both groups, the contralateral control sites received no MOPs. The canines were retracted using mini-screws and closed-coil nickel-titanium springs. Using the patients' 3D models, the primary outcome measure at four months was the amount of orthodontic canine distal movement. The amount of anchorage loss (AL), degree of molar rotation (MR) and canine rotation (CR), and degree of canine tipping (CT) were measured as the secondary outcomes. The comparison of mean changes in the primary and secondary outcomes between the groups was done using the independent sample t-test (p<0.05).
resultsThe rate of canine retraction, degree of CT, and rotation were not significantly different between the two groups (p>0.05). Additionally, there were no statistically significant variations in the maxillary first MR and the degree of AL (p>0.05).
conclusionsWhen maxillary canine retraction was performed with a single and repeated regimen of MOPs, comparable levels of distal CR and tipping were observed, along with an identical minimal degree of MR and AL.
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.