ArticleBioinformation2026
Comparative evaluation of anchorage loss and canine retraction rate using mini-implant anchorage versus conventional molar anchorage.
Article in Bioinformation, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Orthodontic anchorage control during space closure is critical to prevent unwanted tooth movement, prolong treatment and maintain facial aesthetics. This randomised controlled trial compared mini-implant versus conventional molar anchorage (transpalatal arch) in 40 premolar extraction patients for bilateral canine retraction over 3 months. Mini-implants significantly reduced anchorage loss (0.42±0.31 mm versus 2.18±0.67 mm, p<0.001) compared to conventional anchorage. Canine retraction rates were superior with mini-implants (1.24±0.28 mm/month versus 0.89±0.22 mm/month, p<0.001). Mini-implant anchorage provides superior preservation and faster canine retraction, establishing it as the preferred choice for maximum anchorage needs.
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.