ArticleBMC oral health2025
Cone-beam CT evaluation of orthodontic treatment outcomes for multiple impacted maxillary anterior teeth.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the orthodontic outcomes of multiple impacted maxillary anterior teeth using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and analyze the root and alveolar bone attachment following orthodontic traction.
methodsSixteen patients with multiple impacted maxillary anterior teeth treated at the Department of Orthodontics, Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Guangxi Medical University between 2016 and 2020 were included. A total of 14 Impacted maxillary central incisors(IMCIs), 13 Impacted maxillary lateral incisors(IMLIs), and 16 Impacted maxillary canines(IMCs) were assessed. CBCT scans and three-dimensional reconstructions were performed immediately after treatment completion. Measurements included root length(RL), intraosseous root ratio, alveolar bone loss of labial, lingual side(LaBL, LiBL), apical alveolar bone thickness(ABT) , and labial, lingual alveolar bone thickness(LaABT, LiABT) of impacted teeth compared to their contralateral counterparts. Statistical analysis was conducted to assess differences.
resultsThe RL and intraosseous root ratio of IMCIs and IMLIs were significantly smaller than those of the control teeth (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed in RL between IMCs and controls (p > 0.05), but the intraosseous root ratio was smaller in IMCs (p < 0.05). IMCIs exhibited greater LaBL (p < 0.05) and thinner LaABT (p < 0.05) compared to controls, while LiABT, LiBL or ABT showed no significant differences (p > 0.05). IMLIs had larger LiBL (p < 0.05), but LaBL, LiABT, LaABT or ABT did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). IMCs demonstrated greater LaBL (p < 0.05), with no significant differences in LaABT, LiABT, LiBL or ABT (p > 0.05). The success rates of orthodontic traction were 71.43% for IMCIs, 84.62% for IMLIs, and 93.75% for IMCs.
conclusionOrthodontic traction facilitates the preservation of multiple impacted maxillary anterior teeth, though post-traction alveolar bone attachment remains suboptimal. Among the impacted teeth, canines exhibit superior root development and higher traction success rates.
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.