ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Two Micro-osteoperforation Techniques on the Maxillary Anterior En Masse Retraction Rate in Adults: A Split-Mouth Quasi-experimental Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOrthodontic treatment enhances both dental function and facial aesthetics; however, a longer treatment duration may lead to complications, prompting orthodontists to develop innovative methods to reduce treatment time without compromising the results. This study compared the rate of en masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth using two different micro-osteoperforation (MOP) techniques: one with a bone drilling bur and a straight handpiece, and the other with a physiodispenser. MATERIALS AND
methodsA split-mouth quasi-experimental comparative study was conducted on 30 patients who visited the Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics between the ages of 18 and 30 years, requiring extraction of the maxillary first premolars. All the patients were treated with the 0.022 × 0.028-inch McLaughlin, Bennett, and Trevisi (MBT) prescription bracket kit (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). After initial leveling and alignment, each patient was divided into two equal groups (n = 30) using a split-mouth design. On one side (Group A), MOP was performed using a bone-drilling bur with a straight handpiece, whereas on the other side (Group B), MOP was performed using bone-drilling burs with a physiodispenser. The anterior retraction rate was noted for six months. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical analysis, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe study demonstrated that the rate of en masse retraction was greater in the MOP with straight handpiece group than in the physiodispenser group at the end of the second month, third month, and fourth month; however, there was no nonsignificant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05) at the end of the first month and sixth month. At the end of the fifth month, the rate of en masse retraction was significantly greater in the MOP with a physiodispenser than in the straight handpiece group. The Mann-Whitney U test revealed no significant difference in total space closure between groups (Group A: 5.39 ± 0.73 mm; Group B: 5.17 ± 1.16 mm; p = 0.138). However, Group A demonstrated a significantly faster rate of space closure (0.90 ± 0.12 mm/month) compared to Group B (0.86 ± 0.19 mm/month; p = 0.043).
conclusionsMOP with a straight handpiece significantly accelerated maxillary anterior en masse retraction compared with the physiodispenser.
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.