FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3128393340> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3128393340 endingPage "e81" @default.
• W3128393340 startingPage "e81" @default.
• W3128393340 abstract "We read the article reporting osseous evidence behind micro-osteoperforation (MOP) when it was first published online ahead of print (Asif MK, Ibrahim N, Sivarajan S, Heng Khiang Teh N, Chek Wey M. Osseous evidence behind micro-osteoperforation technique in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement: a 3-month study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020;158:579-86.e1). The study highlighted important aspects related to the acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement. We have some questions regarding the trial and would like the authors to enlighten us regarding the same. It was mentioned that scans were performed before the MOP for the 12th week for groups 1 and 3, but it was not clear when the scans were done for group 2. In the inclusion criteria, it was mentioned that patients with less than one half unit Class II molar relationship, requiring the extraction of all first premolars, treated using absolute anchorage were included in the trial. The rate of tooth movement was assessed in a canine retraction model only in the mandibular arch. The retraction of canines in the mandibular arch in a Class II dentition using absolute anchorage may not be a good treatment option. Was any other therapy, such as molar protraction, performed in conjunction with canine retraction? No details regarding the Frankfort-mandibular plane angle of the respective treatment group was mentioned. It is well known that different vertical skeletal patterns have differing rates of tooth movement and thus may have a bearing on the study results.1Pepicelli A. Woods M. Briggs C. The mandibular muscles and their importance in orthodontics: a contemporary review.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128: 774-780Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (70) Google Scholar Why was a paired-samples t test done to compare the MOP side with the control side, as they represent 2 different clinical scenarios albeit in the same patient? Would an independent t test be a more appropriate test in this case? In addition, because there are clearly 3 groups, we wonder why the analysis of variance test was not used for an intergroup comparison because it would yield very useful information. Finally, we saw a varying number of dropouts in this trial. We wish to ask whether an intention-to-treat analysis was done, and if not, were the final numbers analyzed on a “as treated” protocol basis. If so, this clearly diminishes the original assumptions for sample and power calculations. It is established that the regional acceleratory phenomenon for MOPs is viable only for a period of 4 weeks, and MOPs need to be repeated after every 4 weeks to maintain the regional acceleratory phenomenon for the acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement.2Teixeira C.C. Khoo E. Tran J. Chartres I. Liu Y. Thant L.M. et al.Cytokine expression and accelerated tooth movement.J Dent Res. 2010; 89: 1135-1141Crossref PubMed Scopus (134) Google Scholar As a result, most of the studies evaluating MOPs have repeated them at an interval of 4 weeks. Why were intervals of 8 and 12 weeks taken? Osseous evidence behind micro-osteoperforation technique in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement: A 3-month studyAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVol. 158Issue 4PreviewThe study aimed to investigate the effects of micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) on the mandibular bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV) ratio changes and the rate of orthodontic tooth movement using cone-beam computed tomography images. Another objective was to evaluate the effects of MOP frequency intervals (4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks) on the BV/TV ratio and rate of tooth movement. Full-Text PDF Authors’ responseAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVol. 159Issue 2PreviewThank you for your interest. In-vivo osseus evidence further illuminates this interesting and popular research subject. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W3128393340 created "2021-02-15" @default.
• W3128393340 creator A5030062451 @default.
• W3128393340 creator A5054167237 @default.
• W3128393340 creator A5080876284 @default.
• W3128393340 date "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3128393340 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W3128393340 title "Osseous evidence behind micro-osteoperforation" @default.
• W3128393340 cites W1997585414 @default.
• W3128393340 cites W2150557074 @default.
• W3128393340 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.11.008" @default.
• W3128393340 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33546836" @default.
• W3128393340 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3128393340 type Work @default.
• W3128393340 sameAs 3128393340 @default.
• W3128393340 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W3128393340 countsByYear W31283933402023 @default.
• W3128393340 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3128393340 hasAuthorship W3128393340A5030062451 @default.
• W3128393340 hasAuthorship W3128393340A5054167237 @default.
• W3128393340 hasAuthorship W3128393340A5080876284 @default.
• W3128393340 hasBestOaLocation W31283933401 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConcept C157369684 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConcept C188126409 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConcept C202271784 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConcept C2779767645 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConcept C29694066 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConcept C3018023364 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConcept C3019236786 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConcept C59822182 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConcept C62836269 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConceptScore W3128393340C126322002 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConceptScore W3128393340C157369684 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConceptScore W3128393340C188126409 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConceptScore W3128393340C199343813 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConceptScore W3128393340C202271784 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConceptScore W3128393340C2779767645 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConceptScore W3128393340C29694066 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConceptScore W3128393340C3018023364 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConceptScore W3128393340C3019236786 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConceptScore W3128393340C59822182 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConceptScore W3128393340C62836269 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConceptScore W3128393340C71924100 @default.
• W3128393340 hasConceptScore W3128393340C86803240 @default.
• W3128393340 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W3128393340 hasLocation W31283933401 @default.
• W3128393340 hasOpenAccess W3128393340 @default.
• W3128393340 hasPrimaryLocation W31283933401 @default.
• W3128393340 hasRelatedWork W121895623 @default.
• W3128393340 hasRelatedWork W2149262610 @default.
• W3128393340 hasRelatedWork W2415990688 @default.
• W3128393340 hasRelatedWork W2417458919 @default.
• W3128393340 hasRelatedWork W2423234208 @default.
• W3128393340 hasRelatedWork W2556400088 @default.
• W3128393340 hasRelatedWork W2767122491 @default.
• W3128393340 hasRelatedWork W2969813199 @default.
• W3128393340 hasRelatedWork W4240533503 @default.
• W3128393340 hasRelatedWork W90276263 @default.
• W3128393340 hasVolume "159" @default.
• W3128393340 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3128393340 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3128393340 magId "3128393340" @default.
• W3128393340 workType "article" @default.