ObjectiveTo elucidate the critical role of rehabilitation medical records (including electronic records) in rehabilitation medicine's clinical practice and management, comprehensively analyzed the structure, core content and data standards of rehabilitation medical records, to develop a standardized medical record data architecture and core dataset suitable for rehabilitation medicine and to explore the application of rehabilitation data in performance evaluation and payment. MethodsBased on the regulatory documents Basic Specifications for Medical Record Writing and Basic Specifications for Electronic Medical Records (Trial) issued by National Health Commission of China, and referencing the World Health Organization (WHO) Family of International Classifications (WHO-FICs) classifications, International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10/ICD-11), International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), and International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI Beta-3), this study constructed the data architecture, core content and data standards for rehabilitation medical records. Furthermore, it explored the application of rehabilitation record summary sheets (home page) data in rehabilitation medical statistics and payment methods, including Diagnosis-related Groups (DRG), Diagnosis-Intervention Packet (DIP) and Case Mix Index. ResultsThis study proposed a systematic standard framework for rehabilitation medical records, covering key components such as patient demographics, rehabilitation diagnosis, functional assessment, rehabilitation treatment prescriptions, progress evaluations and discharge summaries. The research analyzed the systematic application methods and data standards of ICD-10/ICD-11, ICF and ICHI Beta-3 in the fields of medical record terminology, coding and assessment. Constructing a standardized data structure and data standards for rehabilitation medical records can significantly improve the quality of data reporting based on the medical record summary sheet, thereby enhancing the quality control of rehabilitation services, effectively supporting the optimization of rehabilitation medical insurance payment mechanisms, and contributing to the establishment of rehabilitation medical performance evaluation and payment based on DRG and DIP. ConclusionStructured rehabilitation records and data standardization are crucial tools for quality control in rehabilitation. Systematically applying the three reference classifications of the WHO-FICs, and aligning with national medical record and electronic health record specifications, facilitate the development of a standardized rehabilitation record architecture and core dataset. Standardizing rehabilitation care pathways based on the ICF methodology, and developing ICF- and ICD-11-based rehabilitation assessment tools, auxiliary diagnostic and therapeutic systems, and supporting terminology and coding systems, can effectively enhance the quality of rehabilitation records and enable interoperability and sharing of rehabilitation data with other medical data, ultimately improving the quality and safety of rehabilitation services.

Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.

Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.

Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.

Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.

Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement aims to enhance the quality of reporting for randomized controlled trial (RCT) by providing a minimum item checklist. It was first published in 1996, and updated in 2001 and 2010, respectively. The latest version was released in April 2025, continuously reflecting new evidence, methodological advancements, and user feedback. CONSORT 2025 includes 30 essential checklist items and a template for a participant flow diagram. The main changes to the checklist include the addition of 7 items, revision of 3 items, and deletion of 1 item, as well as the integration of multiple key extensions. This article provides a comprehensive interpretation of the statement, aiming to help clinical trial staff, journal editors, and reviewers fully understand the essence of CONSORT 2025, correctly apply it in writing RCT reports and evaluating RCT quality, and provide guidance for conducting high-level RCT research in China.