Trial reportProgress in orthodontics2021
The efficiency of mandibular mini-implants in reducing adverse effects of class II elastics in adolescent female patients: a single blinded, randomized controlled trial.
Trial report 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Class II elastics on lower incisors during treatment with clear aligners vs. fixed appliance: a randomized clinical trial.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Article
- [Early orthodontic/orthopedic treatment in patients with class II sagittal anomalies. A review].Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExcessive proclination of lower incisors and other undesirable consequences usually result from the use of class II elastics during orthodontic treatment. The purpose of this study was to attempt to limit the adverse effects of class II elastics by the use of mini implants placed in the mandibular arch in adolescent class II female patients.
methodsThe sample comprised 28 patients, (a mean age of 15.66 ± 2 years for intervention group and 15.1 ± 2.2 years for conventional group) with one-fourth or one-half unit class II canine relationship. The sample was divided into two equal groups. Randomization was carried out by a computer sequence generator with a 1:1 allocation ratio. In the intervention group, the mini implants were inserted between the lower second premolar and first molar, while the conventional group underwent regular class II elastics therapy. The active elastics treatment time was 8 months for both groups. Results were assessed by measurements from pre- and post-elastics lateral cephalometric radiographs.
resultsThe change in L1 inclination (0.97 ± 0.92°) and L1 AP position (0.31 ± 0.63 mm) did not show a statistically significant difference between the two groups, but a statistically significant difference was found in the U1 retroclination (5.23 ± 1.92°) and U1 distal movement (4.05 ± 1.4 mm) [P ˂ 0.001] and [P ˂ 0.05] respectively in favor of the intervention group.
conclusionMini-implants in conjunction with class II elastics had no skeletal effect, mainly dentoalveolar and it did not prevent the proclination of lower incisors. There was more distal movement in the upper incisors in the skeletal anchorage group which helped in enhancing the camouflaging of class II malocclusion.
trial registrationTrial registered "FUE.REC (10)/10-2018" at the FUE registration council for clinical trials/IOP Orthodontic Program October 2018.
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.