SynthesisJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2020
Stepwise versus single-step mandibular advancement with functional appliance in treating class II patients : A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of two different mandibular advancement methods: conventional technique vs aesthetic approach.European oral research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifference in the functional orthopedic effect between stepwise mandibular advancement (SWA) and single-step mandibular advancement (SSA) in Angle class II patients remains unclarified.
objectiveTo compare the treatment effects of SWA and SSA on skeletal and dentoalveolar changes in class II patients.
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies that compared differences in skeletal and dentoalveolar effects on class II patients between SWA and SSA were identified in PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science. The grey literature was also searched. The primary outcomes were the mandibular length, L1-MP, and (ANB). Secondary outcomes included Pog sagittal, SNB, overjet, and mandibular plane angle.
resultsSeven studies, including three RCTs and four cohort studies, were retrieved. Meta-analyses revealed pooled mean differences (95% confidence interval) of 0.79 mm (0.45 to 1.12 mm) for Pog sagittal, 0.53° (0.19 to 0.87°) for SNB, -0.51° (-0.83 to -0.20°) for ANB, -0.17° (-0.72 to 0.39°) for the mandibular plane angle, -0.41 mm (-0.90 to 0.09 mm) for overjet, -1.87° (-3.23 to -0.52°) for L1-MP, and 1.03 mm (0.63 to 1.42 mm) for the mandibular length. Publication bias was not observed, except for Pog sagittal. The quality of evidence for each outcome was judged as low (mandibular length, SNB and overjet) and very low (Pog sagittal, ANB, L1-MP and mandibular plane angle).
conclusionsAlthough the magnitude of differences in clinical practice was limited, SWA might be more appropriate because it produces a greater skeletal change and less dental compensation than SSA. As the level of current evidence is low, more high-quality RCTs are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32415333What 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.