ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2020
Effects of the cervical headgear in growing Angle Class II malocclusion patients: a prospective study.
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Timing of Orthodontic Intervention for Pediatric Class II Malocclusion: A Systematic Review on Early vs. Late Treatment Outcomes.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Review
- Long term dental transversal stability of Class II division 1 treated with cervical headgear.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEvaluate dental and skeletal changes resulting from the exclusive use of the cervical headgear for 15 ± 4 months in the treatment of patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion.
methodsDifferences between the beginning (T1) and immediately after the end of the therapy (T2) with the cervical headgear in growing patients (Experimental Group, EG, n = 23) were examined and compared, during compatible periods, with those presented by a group of untreated individuals (Control Group, CG, n =22) with similar malocclusions and chronological age. The cephalometric variables evaluated were: ANB, GoGn.SN, AO-BO, S'-ANS, S'-A, S'-B, S'-Pog and S'-U6 (maxillary first molar). The Shapiro-Wilk and Levene tests were used to evaluate the results.
resultsSignificant differences were found relative to the ANB, S'-U6, AO-BO, S'-ANS, S'-A, S'-B and S'-Pog variables between T1 and T2 when comparing both groups. No statistically significant variation was found regarding the GoGn.SN angle.
conclusionsThe use of cervical headgear promoted distal movement of the maxillary first molars and restricted the anterior displacement of the maxilla, without significantly affecting the GoGn.SN angle.
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.