Study | Subjects & tooth movement model characteristics [number; age; weight] | Tooth movement measurements |
---|---|---|
Ghajar et al. [43] 2013 – Iran | 48 Wistar rats [24 pregnant - 1stw; 24 control] 3 m; 250 ± 25 g; parity nm Sample size calculation: nm SS spring between Mx CIs [30 g] Force application: 2w | Clinical measurements Distance between the mesial corners of MxCIsa Method error assessment: No |
Hellsing and Hammarström [44] 1991 – Sweden | 10 Sprague-Dawley rats [5 pregnant - beginning; 5 control] 3-5 m; 260 g on average; parity nm Sample size calculation: nm 0.011″ Australian wire between Mx FMs [15 g at 1 mm] Force application: 3w | Measurements on occlusal radiographs Transverse distance between the ends of the outer arms of the wireb Method error assessment: Yes |
Kim and Lee [45] 2000 - Korea | 40 Sprague-Dawley rats [20 pregnant; 20 control] 10 w; 200-280 g; parity nm Sample size calculation: nm NiTi spring to between Mx CI and FM [40 g] Force application: 2w | Measurements on lateral ceph. Radiographs Mesial movement of the Mx FMc Method error assessment: No |
Macari et al. [46] 2018 – New Zealand & Brazil | 12 C57BL/6 mice [6 lactating – d 9 postpartum; 6 control nulliparous] 15-17w Sample size calculation: nm NiTi spring between Mx CI and FM [35 g] Force application: 12d | Measurements on micro-CT Difference of the cemento-enamel junction distance of FM and SM between the control and experimental sided Method error assessment: No |