ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2025
Clinical Evaluation of Maxillary Incisors Intrusion: Mini-Screws Versus Burstone Intrusion Arch.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 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
Objective: Maxillary incisors intrusion is needed in cases with overeruption of these teeth in deep bite and gummy smile. True intrusion requires precise mechanical planning and clinical supervision. This study compares the mini-screw (MS) and Burstone intrusion arch (BIA) methods clinically and radiographically to assess their effectiveness. Materials and Methods: Seventeen patients with deep bite were randomly assigned to two groups: the MS group (eight patients, aged 19.75 ± 2.48) treated with MS, and the BIA group (nine patients, aged 20.67 ± 5.41) treated with the BIA method. Ultra-low-dose CBCT (ULD CBCT) scans were taken at the start (T0), immediately after (T1), and 3 months after (T2) treatment. Intrusion amount, rate, inclination changes, overbite, gingival display, root resorption, and periodontal criteria were assessed at three-time intervals: T0-T1, T1-T2, and T0-T2. Data were analyzed using the independent Results: The MS group showed significantly greater intrusion than the BIA group at all three-time intervals ( Conclusions: Both MS and BIA methods were effective for maxillary incisor intrusion. The MS method resulted in more true intrusion and less gingival display. After 3 months of retention, the MS group showed no vertical relapse, while the BIA group had a significant relapse of 0.1 mm (
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.