ArticleMedicine2025
Mandibular third molar protraction using a segmented arch and mini-implant anchorage: A case report.
Article in Medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleThe absence of the mandibular second molar (M2) significantly compromises oral function and quality of life. Conventional prosthetic rehabilitation or autotransplantation presents notable limitations. Under the premise of efficiency and precision, orthodontic mesialization of the third molar (M3) using a localized appliance offers a promising, noninvasive alternative for tooth replacement. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 20-year-old male patient with severe caries in the right mandibular M2 was referred by the Department of Endodontics and admitted to the Orthodontics Department at the Hospital of Stomatology, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China, with the chief complaint of functional rehabilitation in the right mandibular region. DIAGNOSES: After conducting routine orthodontic examinations and analyses, the patient was diagnosed with skeletal Class III malocclusion and Angle Class I malocclusion. Additionally, the right mandibular M2 exhibited severe caries with pulp involvement and subgingival extension.
interventionsThis case involved mesialization of the mandibular right M3 to substitute for the compromised M2, utilizing a segmental arch combined with a temporary anchorage device. Over 20 months, the M3 was mesialized by 11.7 mm, followed by 10 months of occlusal adjustment and 36 months of natural retention. OUTCOMES: The treatment successfully restored occlusal function on the right side. The M3 exhibited favorable root parallelism, preservation of the original occlusal plane, and maintenance of the facial profile. LESSONS: The use of a segmental arch in combination with temporary anchorage devices enables effective mesialization of vertically positioned, two-rooted mandibular M3s. This approach offers a minimally invasive and low-risk alternative for the replacement of prematurely lost M2s in young adults.
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.