ArticleJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2025
Comparative assessment of the rate of maxillary canine retraction using micro-osteoperforation and low-level laser therapy : A split mouth study.
Article in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 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
objectivesTo measure and compare the canine retraction (CR) and molar mesial migration (MMM) rates using micro-osteoperforation (MOP) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis randomized split-mouth study included 20 patients. Following premolar extractions and levelling, the maxillary arch was divided into the right and left halves: group A received MOPs (performed once at T0), and group B underwent LLLT using a gallium-aluminum-arsenide diode laser (810 nm, 100 mW, continuous mode), applied biweekly for 3 months around the canine region. Segmental CR was performed with NiTi coil springs (150 g) using mini-implant anchorage. Digital scans at T0 (baseline), T1 (45 days), and T2 (90 days) were analyzed using three-dimensional (3D) software. Retraction rate was calculated as distance moved per time (mm/day).
resultsThe CR rate was significantly higher in the MOP group (0.03297 ± 0.0092 mm/day) than in the LLLT group (0.01865 ± 0.0070 mm/day, p = 0.000). The MOP group showed a decline from T1 (0-45 days; 0.03297 ± 0.0092 mm/day) to T2 (45-90 days; 0.02245 ± 0.0071 mm/day). MMM was higher in the LLLT group (0.00239 ± 0.0007 mm/day) than in the MOP group (0.00189 ± 0.0006 mm/day) but had a negligible impact on total space closure. The rate of retraction in the MOP group was 1.77 times faster, making it the primary contributor to space closure.
conclusionMOP significantly accelerated orthodontic tooth movement compared to LLLT across all time intervals with minimal MMM and few adverse effects on the molars.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41417046What 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.