ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2025
Recovery bone formation over radiographic lingual bone dehiscence after mandibular molar distalization with microimplants.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess mandibular lingual bone thickness changes after molar distalization with microimplants and during retention. Materials and Methods: Twenty-one patients (10 men, 11 women; mean age: 20.5 ± 4.9 years) who underwent mandibular molar distalization with microimplants were included. Cone-beam computed tomography images at pretreatment (T0), posttreatment (T1), and retention (T2) were used to measure posterior space available and lingual bone thickness distal to the mandibular second molar at 0-, 2-, 4-, and 6-mm levels apical to the root furcation. Repeated measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction was applied to compare T0, T1, and T2 measurements. Pearson's correlation analysis assessed the relationship between lingual bone thickness change and other variables. Results: The mandibular second molar moved distally by 3.0 mm at crown level, and 1.2-1.8 mm at root level, after treatment. Posterior space available decreased significantly with root-cortex contact or radiographic lingual bone dehiscence observed at 6-mm root level. After retention, reduced cortical bone thickness increased significantly; however, T2 lingual bone thickness was less than T0. Although the decrease in lingual bone thickness at 6-mm root level correlated with crown and root distal movement after treatment, the increase in bone thickness during retention was not associated with tooth movement, patient age, or retention duration. Conclusions: Mandibular lingual bone thickness noticeably decreased after molar distalization with microimplants. After retention, significant bone recovery formation was observed at the thinned lingual cortex or radiographic bone dehiscence.
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.