ArticleJournal of oral & maxillofacial research
Does Appliance Design Affect Treatment Outcomes of Class II Division 1 Malocclusion? A Two-Center Retrospective Study.
Article in Journal of oral & maxillofacial research. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mandibular Advancement in Dentofacial Orthopaedics: Effects on Pharyngeal Airway, Dentoskeletal Characteristics and Quality of Life: A Randomised Controlled Trial.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2026Trial
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
objectivesThe purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the pre- and post-treatment values of patients treated with monoblock and twin-block appliances with the values of the skeletal Class I individuals. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe initial lateral cephalometric radiographs of the pubertal untreated skeletal class I patients and cephalometric radiographs of 60 (30 monoblock, 30 twin-block) patients before and after the functional treatment were included in the study. Skeletal, dental, and soft tissue measurements were performed by a single researcher using Dolphin Imaging software version 11.95 (Dolphin Imaging, Chatsworth, CA, USA). Paired t-test was used for statistical evaluation and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsIn both monoblock and twin-block groups, there was a statistically significant increase in the measurements of the lower jaw and the vertical direction values (sella nasion B point (SNB), pogonion nasion perpendicular, Y-axis, sella nasion-gonion gnathion, palatal-mandibular angle, anterior facial height, mandibular length P < 0.05); however, in the Twin-block group, the lower jaw was found to be displaced more forward (change for twin-block; SNB = 2.35, Wits appraisal = -4.77). The most measurements of the twin-block treated group were similar to the control group.
conclusionsBoth functional appliances have been identified to be useful in achieving treatment targets; however, with twin-block, results closer to ideal values are obtained.
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.