ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Micronuclei and cytomorphometric alterations in fixed (metal/ceramic) and removable orthodontic appliances: a prospective exploratory comparative study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOrthodontic appliances may induce mechanical and biochemical stress on the oral mucosa, potentially leading to early cytological alterations.
objectiveTo evaluate and compare the cytomorphometric parameters and micronuclei (MN) frequency in fixed metal, ceramic, and removable orthodontic appliances in adolescents at 1 and 6 weeks after appliance placement.
methodsThis prospective exploratory comparative study was conducted on 30 adolescents divided into three groups: metal, ceramic, and removable orthodontic appliance (n = 10 each). Exfoliative cytology using Papanicolaou staining was performed at two experimental sites (S1, S2) and one non-contact intraoral comparison site (S3) at 1 week (T1) and 6 weeks (T2). No true pre-treatment baseline (T0) was available. Intergroup comparisons were made using Kruskal-Wallis, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for within-group comparisons.
resultsIntergroup comparison showed no significant differences for cytoplasmic (C ) area and nuclear (N) area, and N: C ratio across most comparisons (p > 0.05) (p = 0.096-0.995; η² = 0.0003-0.16). A difference was noted only for MN frequency at the S1T1 (p = 0.04; η²=0.22). The principal findings were derived from intragroup T1-to-T2 comparisons. In the fixed metal appliance group, MN (p ≤ 0.028) and N: C ratio (p = 0.002) increased significantly across all sites(S1, S2, S3), with strong effect sizes. The ceramic appliance group showed limited, site-specific changes, with micronucleus frequency significantly increased at S1 (p = 0.014), while the N: C ratio (p = 0.037) and nuclear area (p = 0.002) showed significant changes at S3. The removable appliance group showed a significant increase in MN frequency, N:C ratio, and cytoplasmic area across selected sites, with strong effect sizes.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this small exploratory study, early post-placement cytological alterations were observed in the oral mucosa during orthodontic treatment, particularly in MN frequency and N: C ratio. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously due to lack of true pre-treatment baseline. Also, most intergroup comparisons were non-significant. MN frequency and N: C ratio may indicate promising research indicators of cytological alterations suggestive of cytogenetic stress, especially in the fixed metal and removable appliance groups. Nevertheless, there is need for larger longitudinal studies with true baseline assessment before stronger conclusions can be drawn.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42622707What 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.