ArticleClinical oral investigations2021
Pharyngeal airway and hyoid bone position changes of skeletal anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device and activator appliances.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effects of miniplate anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (MAF) and activator treatments in the pharyngeal airway dimensions and hyoid bone position. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-eight patients with mandibular retrusion who were treated with either MAF or activator were selected retrospectively and compared with an untreated control group. The data of 114 lateral cephalograms, comprising those taken before treatment (T1) and at the end of functional treatment (T2), were evaluated with regard to their linear, angular, and area measurements.
resultsThe mandibular length increased and the hyoid bone moved forward with both treatments (P < 0.05). The horizontal change in the hyoid bone position with MAF treatment was correlated with changes in the point B and ANB angle. Increases of 1.8 mm, 1.4 mm, and 1.8 mm in the pharyngeal airway dimensions were obtained at the levels of the second, third, and fourth cervical vertebra, respectively, with the MAF treatment. On the other hand, an increase of 1.9 mm was found at the level of the fourth cervical vertebra with the activator treatment. The greatest vertical movement in the Menton and the highest increase in the oropharyngeal area were observed in the MAF group (P < 0.05).
conclusionBoth the MAF and activator treatments caused favorable maxillomandibular changes; however, the MAF treatment provided a greater increase in the oropharyngeal area according to both the increase in mandibular length and the change in the vertical position of the mandible. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Functional appliances were found to be useful in increasing the pharyngeal airway dimensions in the short-term. The skeletal anchored fixed functional appliance caused a greater increase in the oropharyngeal airway area that may be beneficial for Class II patients who carry a risk of having respiratory problems.
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.