Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42787913›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2026

Ahmet Can Yılmaz, Özer Alkan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ahmet Can YılmazKütahya Health Sciences University Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Kütahya, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0003-2738-5337
Özer AlkanAnkara Yıldırım Beyazıt University Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0001-8712-7175

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This Methods: Twenty-six patients (18 females and 8 males; aged 11-25 years) with normally positioned mandibular incisors, defined by an initial 1-NB distance of 3-5 mm, were included. All patients received non-extraction fixed orthodontic treatment with the straight-wire technique. Gingival recession was clinically recorded at treatment onset (T0) and 20 days after appliance removal (T1). Gingival thickness was measured by transgingival probing at two labial sites on each mandibular anterior tooth: one apical to the free gingival groove and one coronal to the mucogingival junction. The T0-T1 changes were analyzed using paired samples t-tests; intergroup gingival thickness comparisons were analyzed using independent samples t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests, with a Bonferroni correction where appropriate. Results: The mean treatment duration was 28.26 months. The 1-NB distance increased significantly from 4.05±0.94 mm to 4.67±1.51 mm (p=0.003), whereas the 1-NB angle and the incisor mandibular plane angle changes were not significant. No clinical gingival recession was detected at T1. Significant tooth- and level-specific changes in gingival thickness were observed. Conclusion: Within this sample and observation period, no clinical gingival recession was observed after treatment. However, changes in gingival thickness indicate that labial gingival thickness should be considered during orthodontic treatment planning and periodontal monitoring.

Indexed as

gingival recessiongingival thicknessincisorsOrthodontic appliances-fixed

Identifiers

PMID42787913
PMCPMC13614171

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.