ArticleBMC pediatrics2021
Differences in the factors associated with tongue pressure between children with class I and Class II malocclusions.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical control in dental and jaw morphogenesis and remodeling.International journal of oral science · 2026Review
- Correlation of Tongue Strength and Endurance with Overjet and Overbite in Angle Class I Malocclusion: A Study in Deutero Malay Race Ages 9-12 Years.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Oral function tests in spinal muscular atrophy: closing the diagnostic gap in severely affected adult patients : A prospective observational study.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2026Observational
- Ultrasonographic and cephalometric assessment of tongue thickness across angle's classes of malocclusion in skeletal class I patients.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Detection of Lip, Tongue, Masseter, and Temporalis Muscle Contractions with Electromyography Tools as an Early Diagnostic Medium for Dentoalveolar Malocclusion.European journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Genetic and environmental impact on variation in the palatal dimensions in permanent dentition: a twin study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Three-dimensional relationships between condylar volume and dentoskeletal characteristics in Class II hyperdivergent female adults.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe relationship between tongue pressure and masticatory performance during the mixed dentition period in cases of Class II malocclusion has not been clarified. The aim of this study was to determine differences in tongue pressure-related factors, including maxillofacial morphology and masticatory performance, between Class I and Class II malocclusions during the mixed dentition period.
methodsA total of 56 children with Class I malocclusion (12 boys, 16 girls) or Class II malocclusion (16 boys, 12 girls) with mixed dentition were included in the present study. Height, body weight, hand grip strength, maximum occlusal force, maximum tongue pressure, masticatory performance, and the number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth were measured in all participants. Their lateral cephalograms were also evaluated. The means of all measurements were compared between Class I and Class II malocclusions. Pearson's correlation coefficients were used to determine associations between maximum tongue pressure and other variables for each type of malocclusion.
resultsThe maximum tongue pressure, hand grip strength, and maximum occlusal force in the Class II malocclusion group were significantly lower than those in the Class I malocclusion group (all, p < 0.05). The maximum tongue pressure was significantly positively correlated with hand grip strength, maximum occlusal force, masticatory performance, and SNB (sella, nasion, B point) angle in the Class I group (all, p < 0.05), and with height, body weight, and labial inclination of the central incisors in the Class II group (all, p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe maxillofacial morphometric factors associated with tongue pressure were clearly different between cases of Class I and Class II malocclusion with mixed dentition. Masticatory performance and tongue pressure were significantly positively correlated in cases of Class I malocclusion, but not in cases of Class II malocclusion.
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.