ArticleCureus2024
Protraction of Mandibular Second Molar for Substitution of Adjacent Missing First Molar With a Mini-Implant-Anchored Albert Loop Appliance.
Article in Cureus, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mastering molar mesialization: the role of attachment designs and tipping compensation in clear aligner therapy-a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Mandibular third molar protraction using a segmented arch and mini-implant anchorage: A case report.Medicine · 2025Article
- Relationship Between Facial Types and Alveolar Crest Cortical Bone Thickness and CT Values Determined by Multidetector Computed Tomography.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Biomechanical analysis on mandibular anterior teeth during unilateral mandibular molar Protraction with different movement patterns: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Protraction of mandibular posterior teeth into edentulous regions is challenging in clinical practice. This case demonstrated a minor tooth movement of a mandibular second molar to substitute its adjacent missing first molar in a 15-year-old female. An efficient bodily movement of the mandibular second molar was achieved through a mini-implant-anchored protraction loop appliance. With this carefully designed biomechanical system, over 10-mm molar protraction was accomplished within 14 months without mesial or lingual tipping. The adjacent third molar erupted spontaneously during the protraction process and drafted mesially. Through brackets and segmented archwire after the protraction, the second and third molars were successfully protracted and good buccal interdigitation was achieved. The combination of the Albert protraction loop and mini-implant allows for more efficient protraction of the mandibular molars, avoiding mesial tipping and lingual rotation of the molars.
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.