ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2015
Extraction treatment of a class II division 2 malocclusion with mandibular posterior discrepancy and changes in stomatognathic function.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Orthodontic Protocol Using Mini-Implant for Class II Treatment in Patient with Special Needs.Case reports in dentistry · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This case report describes the successful extraction treatment of a Class II division 2 malocclusion with mandibular posterior discrepancy and a congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisor on the left side. The posterior space in the mandibular arch was small, and the mandibular second molars were impacted, with distal tipping. The discrepancies in the maxillary and mandibular arches were resolved by extraction of the maxillary lateral incisor on the right side and the mandibular second premolars on both sides. The mesial movement of the mandibular first molars occurred appropriately, with the second molars moving into an upright position. A lip bumper was used with a preadjusted edgewise appliance in the maxillary dentition to reinforce molar anchorage and labial movement of the retroclined incisors. Despite the extraction treatment, a deep bite could be corrected without aggravation as a result of the lip bumper and utility arch in the mandibular dentition. Thus, an Angle Class I molar relationship and an ideal overbite were achieved. The occlusal contact area and masticatory muscle activities during maximum clenching increased after treatment. The maximum closing velocity and the maximum gape during chewing increased, and the chewing pattern changed from the chopping to grinding type. The findings in the present case suggest that the correction of a deep bite might be effective for improving stomatognathic function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.