ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2024
Clinical efficacy, bone density, and follow-up in implant and orthodontic treatment for inclined adjacent teeth.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 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
backgroundTooth defects can cause elongation of occlusal teeth, leading to insufficient repair space. The combination of dental implant restoration and orthodontic treatment of oblique adjacent teeth has a significant therapeutic effect.
aimTo explore clinical efficacy, bone density, and follow-up of implant and orthodontic treatment for patients with inclined adjacent teeth.
methodsIn total, 98 patients with oblique adjacent teeth were randomly assigned to implant restoration combined with orthodontic treatment (group A,
resultsThe clinical effective rates of group A and group B were 97.96% and 85.71%, respectively, with group A having a higher clinical effective rate than group B. After treatment, the bone density of the alveolar ridge and apical bone in both groups decreased compared to before treatment, while the chewing and language functions improved. The changes in various indicators in group A were more significant. After treatment, the satisfaction rate of group A (97.96%) was higher than that of group B (79.59%). The incidence of adverse reactions in group A (2.04%) was lower than that in group B (24.49%).
conclusionThe amalgamation of implant restoration and orthodontic treatment for adjacent tilted teeth demonstrates notable clinical efficacy, diminishes alveolar bone resorption, and fosters patient functional rehabilitation while exhibiting negligible adverse reactions.
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.