ArticleProgress in orthodontics2021
Analysis of pretreatment factors associated with stability in early class III treatment.
Article in Progress in orthodontics, 2021. 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.
- Radiographic Imaging for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Skeletal Class III Malocclusion.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Long-term skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of hybrid rapid maxillary expansion and facemask treatment in growing skeletal Class III patients: a retrospective follow-up study.Progress in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to identify pretreatment factors associated with the stability of early class III treatment, since most orthodontists start the treatment with their uncertain hypotheses and/or predictions. Subjects consisted of 75 patients with a class III skeletal relationship (ANB < 2° and overjet < 0 mm) who had been consecutively treated with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask and followed until their second phase treatment. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether they showed relapse in follow-up. The stable group maintained their positive overjet (n = 55), and the unstable group experienced relapse with a zero or negative overjet (n = 20). Two general, three dental, and 13 cephalometric pretreatment factors were investigated to determine which factors were associated with stability.
resultsSex, pretreatment age, and anteroposterior functional shift, which were hypothesized as associated factors, were not related to the stability of early class III treatment. Significant differences were detected between the two groups in the horizontal distance between the maxillary and mandibular molars in centric relation. Cephalometric variables, such as the mandibular length (Ar-Me), Wits appraisal, SN to ramus plane angle (SN-Rm), gonial angle, incisor mandibular plane angle (IMPA), and Frankfort plane to mandibular incisor angle (FMIA) showed significant differences between the groups. The horizontal distance was the most influential factor by logistic regression analysis.
conclusionsHypothesis (related to sex, age, functional shift) were rejected. Several cephalometric factors related to the mandible were associated with stability. The horizontal distance between the maxillary and mandibular molars in centric relation was the best predictor of early class III treatment relapse.
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.