ReviewJournal of orthodontic science2024
Tooth movement with dental anchorage vs. skeletal anchorage: A systematic review of clinical trials.
Review in Journal of orthodontic science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to compare the time and movement of orthodontic treatment using dental anchorage and skeletal anchorage in adolescent and adult patients with dental malocclusions. A systematic search was conducted in the Embase, PubMed, Lilacs, Cochrane, Trip, and Scopus databases up to October 2022. All the articles were selected using title and abstract, applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved with a third author. Finally, a full-text selection took place. The data extraction was conducted by two authors who independently evaluated the risk of bias. The methodological quality of the randomized clinical trials was evaluated using the Cochrane tool for the evaluation of the randomized clinical trials. Six articles were included in the data analysis. There were four clinical trials and two randomized clinical trials. A total of 176 patients was obtained with an age range between 14 and 46 years. Four studies showed significant differences when comparing the two anchorages in retraction or distalization of tooth groups, and two showed no differences when using dental and skeletal anchorage for vertical movements; only the articles with vertical movements showed relapse. We can conclude that skeletal anchorage generates precise and stable horizontal movements without overloading or changing the position of the molar. Future studies must incorporate three-dimensional technology for greater clinical accuracy.
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.