Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38735912›Full record

Trial reportProgress in orthodontics2024

Patient-reported outcomes during accelerating the en-masse retraction of the upper anterior teeth using low-intensity electrical stimulation: a randomized controlled trial.

Rashad I Shaadouh, Mohammad Y Hajeer, Ghiath A Mahmoud, Imad Addin Almasri, Samer T Jaber, Mohammad Khursheed Alam

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Progress in orthodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05920525 nacompletednot on this map

Evaluation of Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) During Accelerating the En-masse Retraction of Upper Anterior Teeth Using a Low-intensity Direct Electrical Current: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorDamascus UniversityRan2021 to 2023Enrolled40ConditionsClass II Malocclusion, Division 1ArmsElectrical stimulation, Traditional retraction of the front upper teeth
NCT06875037 nacompletednot on this map

Patient-reported Outcomes of Accelerated Upper Canine Retraction With Low-amperage Electrical Stimulation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorDamascus UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled40ConditionsClass II Division 1 MalocclusionArmsElectric stimulation removable appliance, Traditional orthodontic fixed appliance without accleration
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rashad I ShaadouhDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Damascus, Damascus, Syria.
Mohammad Y HajeerDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Damascus, Damascus, Syria. myhajeer@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0640-1297
Ghiath A MahmoudDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Damascus, Damascus, Syria.
Imad Addin AlmasriDepartment of Applied Statistics, Faculty of Economics, University of Damascus, Damascus, Syria.
Samer T JaberDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Al-Wataniya Private University, Hama, Syria.
Mohammad Khursheed AlamOrthodontic Division, Preventive Dentistry Department, College of Dentistry, Jouf University, Sakaka, 72345, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

Damascus University 501100020595
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow-intensity electrical stimulation (LIES) is considered a relatively recent technology that has received little attention in orthodontics as a method of acceleration. This study aimed to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures when LIES is used to accelerate the en-masse retraction of the upper anterior teeth. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe sample consisted of 40 patients (8 males, 32 females; mean age 21.1 ± 2.3 years), with Class II division I malocclusion who required extraction of the first premolars to retract upper anterior teeth. They were randomly assigned to the LIES group (n = 20) and the conventional en-masse retraction group (CER; n = 20). Patient responses regarding pain, discomfort, burning sensation, swelling, chewing difficulty, speech difficulty, and painkillers' consumption were recorded at these nine assessment times: 24 h (T1), 3 days (T2), and 7 days (T3) after force application, then in the second month after 24 h (T4), 3 days (T5), and 7 days (T6) of force re-activation, and finally after 24 h (T7), 3 days (T8), and 7 days (T9) of force re-activation in the third month.

resultsThe mean values of pain perception were smaller in the LIES group than those in the CER group at all assessment times with no statistically significant differences between the two groups except during the second and third months (T5, T6, T8, and T9; P < 0.005). However, discomfort mean values were greater in the LIES group with significant differences compared to CER group during the first week of the follow-up only (T1, T2, and T3; P < 0.005). Burning sensation levels were very mild in the LIES group, with significant differences between the two groups at T1 and T2 only (P < 0.001). Speech difficulty was significantly greater in the LIES group compared to CER group at all studied times (P < 0.001). High levels of satisfaction and acceptance were reported in both groups, without any significant difference.

conclusionBoth the LIES-based acceleration of en-masse retraction of upper anterior teeth and the conventional retraction were accompanied by mild to moderate pain, discomfort, and chewing difficulty on the first day of retraction. These sensations gradually decreased and almost disappeared over a week after force application or re-activation.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05920525. Registered 17 June 2023 - retrospectively registered, http://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05920525?term=NCT05920525&rank=1 .

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresTooth Movement TechniquesBicuspidElectric StimulationFemaleHumansIncisorMaleMalocclusion, Angle Class IIMasticationMaxillaPain MeasurementTooth ExtractionYoung AdultEn-masse retractionLow-intensity electrical stimulationPainSatisfactionVisual analog scale

Identifiers

PMID38735912
PMCPMC11089026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.