↓ Skip to main content

Three-dimensional assessment of two different canine retraction techniques: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Progress in Orthodontics, August 2021
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Three-dimensional assessment of two different canine retraction techniques: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial
Published in
Progress in Orthodontics, August 2021
DOI 10.1186/s40510-021-00374-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Şuayip Akın, Hasan Camcı

Abstract

The aim of this split-mouth trial was to compare power-arm sliding (PAS) and direct sliding (DS) canine retraction mechanics in terms of speed, rotation, angulation, and anchorage loss. Thirty-six class II division 1 patients (20 females, 16 males; mean age, 16.94 ± 3.23) requiring upper first premolar extraction were included in the study. Miniscrews were used as anchorage units, and a retraction force of 150 gr was applied from the power arm on one side and from the bracket on the opposite side by using elastomeric chains. Randomization was achieved by block randomization with a 1:1 allocation ratio either to the right or the left with allocations concealed in opaque, sealed envelopes. Digital models were acquired using an intraoral scanner at the beginning of the retraction (T0), the first month (T1), the second month (T2), and the third month (T3). Before the scans, the archwire was removed, and custom metal jigs were inserted into the vertical slot of the canine brackets to evaluate the canine angulation. The digital models of each patient were separately superimposed with the local best-fit algorithm, and the retraction rate, angulation, rotation, and anchorage loss were measured. The digital measurements were performed using the Geomagic Control X software. The DS technique's total retraction rate was higher than that of the PAS technique (2.09 and 1.57, respectively, p = .002). There was, however, no significant difference between the two techniques in terms of angulation, rotation, and anchorage loss. A negative correlation was observed between the retraction rate and age, but it was not statistically significant. No significant difference was observed between the retraction rates of female and male participants in either retraction technique. For both orthodontists and patients, the DS technique is simpler and more convenient; thus, it is the preferred method for canine retraction. The trial was not registered. The protocol was not published before the trial commencement.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 19%
Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 8 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 38%
Materials Science 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Unknown 8 50%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2021.
All research outputs
#17,935,910
of 20,225,181 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Orthodontics
#196
of 222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,629
of 338,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Orthodontics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,225,181 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 222 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them