ReviewCureus2025
Association Between Different Biomarkers and Initial Orthodontic Tooth Movement in Children and Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Biomarkers for Treatment Response in Orthodontics: Molecular Mechanisms, Clinical Utility, and Future Directions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
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 present systematic review aims to bridge the existing knowledge gap by evaluating the influence of various biomarkers on initial orthodontic tooth movement in children and adults. A systematic electronic search was conducted using relevant keywords across the databases PubMed, Google Scholar, and EBSCOhost to identify articles published in English until December 2023. The "Risk of Bias (ROB) in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions" (ROBINS-I) tool was used to assess the risk of bias, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was applied to critically appraise the quality of evidence. A total of 10 studies were identified, all of which were non-randomised clinical trials that compared biomarker expression in patients belonging to the growing age group (children, juveniles, or adolescents) and adults, using gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) or saliva analysed by the ELISA method. Overall, younger patients consistently exhibited faster and more pronounced biological responses to orthodontic forces, with biomarker levels peaking within the first 72 hours of force application.
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.