ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2026
The impact of orthodontic traction on outcomes in impacted canine management: a quantitative analysis.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2026. 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.
- Periodontal outcomes: Surgical exposure versus extraction of impacted maxillary canines.Bioinformation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effects of orthodontic traction of impacted maxillary canines on treatment duration, alveolar bone levels, white spot lesions (WSLs), root resorption, and the need for auxiliary appliances. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, 116 patients were divided into two groups: 58 with unilaterally impacted maxillary canines and 58 controls without impaction. All patients received nonextraction treatment using labial fixed appliances. Pretreatment and posttreatment panoramic radiographs, intraoral photographs, and intraoral scans were analyzed. The collected data were used to compare the groups across five clinical parameters. Statistical analyses included the Mann-Whitney U-test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, χ2 test, and Cochran's Q test, with significance set at P < .05. Results: The impaction group had significantly longer treatment duration (mean = 2.64 ± 0.99 years) than controls (mean = 1.85 ± 0.60 years). Alveolar bone loss was significantly greater in teeth adjacent to the impacted canine and between the impacted and nonimpacted sides within the impaction group (P < .05). WSL incidence was higher in the impaction group, especially in posterior teeth (P = .0034). Root resorption patterns differed by region: maxillary incisors were more affected in the impaction group, whereas mandibular posterior teeth showed more resorption in controls. The use of auxiliary appliances was significantly greater in the impaction group. Conclusions: Impacted canine treatment is associated with increased treatment time, greater alveolar bone loss, higher risk of WSLs, and distinct root resorption patterns. These findings highlight the importance of individualized treatment planning, careful biomechanical control, and preventive strategies in managing impacted canines.
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.