ArticleJournal of orthodontic science2025
Evaluating Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor Kappa B Ligand (RANKL) and Osteoprotegerin (OPG) expression during canine retraction: A comparison between periodontal distraction versus conventional retraction.
Article in Journal of orthodontic science, 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
objectiveTo evaluate and compare the expression levels of Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor Kappa B Ligand (RANKL) and Osteoprotegerin (OPG) in canine periodontal tissues subjected to periodontal distraction versus conventional retraction at different treatment time points. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study involved 40 cuspids from 20 patients (9 males, 11 females) randomly allocated to either the periodontal distraction (PD) group or the conventional retraction group. Appliances were applied by a single practitioner in a split-mouth design. In Group 1 (PD), a trans-palatal arch and Hyrax expanders were used following premolar extraction with osteotomies performed to facilitate distraction. Group 2 (conventional retraction) used MBT brackets with sectional archwires and elastic chains. Gingival crevicular fluid samples were collected on the first day (D0), after 1 week (W1), and 6 weeks (W6) and OPG and RANKL levels were analyzed using ELISA test.
resultsThere was a significant difference in canine retraction duration between methods (
conclusionThe periodontal distraction method significantly reduces the duration of canine retraction and enhances osteoclastic activity, as evidenced by increased RANKL and decreased OPG levels, facilitating accelerated tooth movement through efficient bone resorption and remodeling.
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.