ArticleDental research journal2025
Comparison of two micro-osteoperforation protocols using mini-screws on the rate and type of extraction space closure: A randomized clinical trial.
Article in Dental research journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accelerating orthodontic space closure while minimizing anchorage loss remains a clinical priority. Micro-osteoperforation (MOP) has emerged as a minimally invasive technique to enhance tooth movement. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two MOP protocols on the rate and pattern of maxillary extraction space closure. Materials and Methods: In this parallel three-arm randomized controlled trial, 30 patients (17-30 years) with 3-4 mm of residual maxillary extraction space were randomly assigned to MOP1, MOP2, or control groups ( Results: Thirty patients (11 males, 19 females) were equally divided into MOP1, MOP2, and control groups. After 3 months, mean space closure was 0.88 mm greater in MOP1 and 0.90 mm greater in MOP2 compared to control. The 0.02 mm difference between MOP1 and MOP2 was clinically negligible. Control showed the greatest tipping, whereas MOP2 had the least. No adverse events were observed. Conclusion: Monthly application of MOP significantly accelerates space closure and reduces tipping without increasing anchorage loss. The difference between MOP protocols was minimal and clinically negligible.
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.