Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34369566›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of orthodontics2022

Effects of force magnitude on dental arches in cervical headgear therapy.

Tuula Talvitie, Mika Helminen, Susanna Karsila, Pertti Pirttiniemi, Luca Signorelli, Reeta Varho, Timo Peltomäki

Open access · hybridAbstract readControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of orthodontics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 49% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Tuula TalvitieVaasa Social Services and Health Care Division, Dental Service, Vaasa, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-2992-3784
Mika HelminenTays Research Services, Tampere University Hospital, Finland.
Susanna KarsilaTurku Municipal Health Care Services, Dental Teaching Unit, Turku, Finland.
Pertti PirttiniemiDepartment of Oral Development and Orthodontics, Research Unit of Oral Health Sciences, University of Oulu, Finland.
Luca SignorelliPrivate Practice, Wil, Switzerland.
Reeta VarhoTurku Municipal Health Care Services, Dental Teaching Unit, Turku, Finland.
Timo PeltomäkiFaculty of Health Sciences, Institute of Dentistry, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Tampere University · FITurku City Hospital · FIOulu University Hospital · FIUniversity of Eastern Finland · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo study the influence of different force magnitudes on dental arches in cervical headgear (CHG) treatment. MATERIAL AND

methodsIn this controlled clinical trial, patients (n = 40) were treated with CHG with light (L, 300 g, n = 22) or heavy force (H, 500 g, n = 18) magnitude. Subjects were asked to use CHG for 10 hours a day for 10 months. The outer bow of the CHG facebow was raised 10-20 degrees and the inner bow expanded 3-4 mm. Adherence to instructions and force magnitude were monitored with an electronic module (Smartgear, Swissorthodontics, Switzerland). Impressions for study models were taken before (T1) and after (T2) treatment and the study models were scanned into digital form (3Shape, R700 Scanner, Denmark). Measurements were made using the digital models (Planmeca Romexis, Model analyser, Finland).

resultsDuring the treatment (T1-T2) the upper inter-canine distance increased by 2.83 mm (P = 0.000) and 2.60 mm (P = 0.000) in the L and H force magnitude groups, respectively. Upper inter-molar width increased by 3.16 mm (P = 0.000) and 2.50 mm (P = 0.000) in the L and H groups, respectively. Maxillary total arch perimeter increased by 6.39 mm (P = 0.001) and 6.68 mm (P = 0.001) in the L and H groups, respectively. In the amount of change over time, T1-T2, in the upper arch measurements, no significant difference was found between the groups. Lower inter-canine width increased by 0.94 mm (P = 0.005) and 1.16 mm (P = 0.000) in the L and H groups, respectively; no difference between the groups. Lower inter-molar distance increased by 2.17 mm (P = 0.000) and 1.11 mm (P = 0.008) in the L and H groups, respectively. At the end of the study, upper and lower inter-molar width was larger in the L group than in the H group (P = 0.039 and P = 0.022, respectively).

conclusionCHG therapy is an effective method for expanding and releasing moderate crowding of the upper dental arch. The lower arch spontaneously follows the upper arch in widening effects, and minor expansion can also be seen on the lower arch. In the L group, larger inter-molar width was achieved on the upper and lower arch; probably due to better adherence to instructions. Light force is recommended for use in CHG therapy.

Indexed as

MalocclusionMalocclusion, Angle Class IIDental ArchExtraoral Traction AppliancesHumansMaxilla

Identifiers

PMID34369566
PMCPMC10084716
OpenAlexW3191069088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.