ArticleBioinformation2026
Space closure rate and anchorage control during maxillary anterior en-masse retraction using bidimensional versus conventional sliding mechanics.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Efficient orthodontic space closure depends on optimal control of friction, anchorage and anterior torque. Therefore, it is of interest to compare four maxillary anterior retraction techniques-conventional sliding mechanics, bidimensional wire technique, bidimensional slot technique and a double-slot bracket system-by evaluating the rate and amount of space closure, anchorage loss, molar rotation and torque control. Forty patients were equally divided into four groups and treatment effects were assessed using standardized model analysis and cephalometric measurements. Bidimensional and double-slot techniques demonstrated significantly faster rates of space closure and superior torque control compared with conventional sliding mechanics. At the same time, anchorage loss and molar rotation were comparable among all groups. Thus, we show the biomechanical efficiency of bidimensional retraction techniques with conventional mechanics during maxillary anterior space closure.
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.