ArticleBioinformation2025
Maxillary incisors and molars with conventional and skeletal anchorage device: A randomized controlled trial.
Article in Bioinformation, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effect of traditional anchorage techniques and new mini-implant methods on the positioning of maxillary incisors and molars in terms of anteroposterior, vertical and angular changes is of interest. Hence, eighteen patients, with either Angle Class II Division 1 malocclusion or Class I malocclusion with a bimaxillary protrusion, were split into two groups: Group 1, which used mini-implants and Group 2, which relied on conventional anchorage. Space was closed within 12-18 months and the lateral cephalograms and orthopantomograms (OPGs) were taken at the start (T1) and after space closure (T2). In Group 1, significant movement of the maxillary first molars in both a distal and intruding direction into the bone was observed. Meanwhile, the molars in Group 2 were shifted mesially and extruded. Molar tipping was more stable in Group 1. Mini-implant anchorage proved more efficient in controlling molar movement, retraction and anterior teeth tipping.
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.