ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2025
Effects of Micro-Osteoperforation Depths on Canine Retraction Rate and Root Resorption: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 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.
- Micro-osteoperforation for accelerating orthodontic tooth movement: a meta-analysis of short-term efficacy, safety, and optimal application parameters.Frontiers in dental medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare canine retraction rates and the amounts of root resorption in different depths of micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) during canine retraction in orthodontic patients. Relevant literature was sought using a prespecified search strategy until May 2024. Electronic medical and scientific databases included PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane's Library (clinical trials). The review protocol was registered in Prospero (CRD42024555722). The data were analyzed in terms of mean difference for comparison using a random-effect meta-analysis. A total of 14 randomized controlled trial studies were included. According to the findings of the meta-analysis on MOPs and their impact on the mean rate of canine movement, the MOP groups showed a significantly higher rate compared with the control groups (weighted mean difference = 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.40;
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.