ArticleEuropean oral research2026
Movement of mini-implants subjected to directional orthodontic forces for intrusion or distal movement of the maxillary teeth: a nonrandomized clinical study.
Article in European oral research, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the movement of mini-implants subjected to orthodontic forces in the sagittal and vertical directions. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four young patients with a total of forty-six mini-implants placed between the maxillary second premolar and the maxillary first permanent molar were divided into two groups. Group 1 (G1) consisted of patients undergoing distalisation, whereas Group 2 (G2) consisted of patients undergoing intrusion. In both groups, bilateral orthodontic forces were applied from the mini-implants in the sagittal (G1) and vertical (G2) directions, respectively. Linear and angular measurements were used to evaluate mini-implant displacement in both groups using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans obtained before treatment (T1) and toward the end of treatment (T2). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used, respectively, to compare mini-implant displacement within and between the groups, respectively. A Kaplan-Meier survival curve was plotted to estimate the duration for which the mini-implants were likely to remain in the oral cavity. Results: In G1, a statistically significant increase in both vertical and sagittal angulation of the mini-implants was observed, directed toward the occlusal and mesial directions, respectively (p = 0.016 and p<0.001). In G2, an increase in vertical angulation toward the occlusal direction and a mild distal angulation were observed; however, these changes were not statistically significant. In both G1 and G2, a statistically significant linear displacement of the mini-implants was detected, with movement toward the maxillary second premolar in G1 (p<0.001) and away from the maxillary second premolar in G2 (p = 0.006). Conclusion: Mini-implant movement was greater under sagittal orthodontic forces than under vertical forces. Minor displacement of mini-implants occurs when subjected to orthodontic forces-particularly in the sagittal direction-but this movement may not necessarily indicate implant failure.
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.