ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2022
Comparative Analysis of Dentoskeletal Changes of the Twin Block Appliance and the AdvanSync2 Appliance in Treatment of Skeletal Class-II Malocclusion in Pakistani Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of Twin Block appliance and Herbst appliance in the treatment of Class II malocclusion among children: a meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Effects of Twin-Block with an expanding device on the upper airway in growing children with skeletal class II malocclusion-a retrospective study based on the consistency of three-dimensional and two-dimensional data.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare dentoskeletal changes in skeletal class-II malocclusion with removable twin block appliance and fixed AdvanSync2 appliance. MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted over a span of 1 year at AFID at Rawalpindi. Thirty patients with skeletal class-II malocclusion, 16 males (53.3%) and 14 females (46.6%), were randomly selected and divided in two equal groups (15 each) to be treated with either fixed functional appliances (FFAs) or with removable functional appliances (RFAs). Out of 30 patients, 15 between cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) stages of 2 and 3 were treated with RFA (twin block appliances) and remaining 15 between CVM stages of 4 and 5 were treated with FFA (AdvanSync2 appliances). Pretreatment (T STATITICAL ANALYSIS: Paired sample t-test was used to assess significant difference between variables at T1 (Pre-treatment) and T2 (Post-treatment) stage for both RFA and FFA group. Comparison among the RFA and FFA group was made using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U Test. IBM SPSS version 25.0 was used for evaluation.
resultsNo significant difference was found in angular variables between the RFA and FFA groups (
conclusionBoth the appliances, twin block (RFA) and AdvanSync2 (FFA), are effective for correction of skeletal class-II malocclusion. Both the appliances produced similar effects in the sagittal plane but for better vertical control twin block should be the appliance of choice. AdvanSync2 appliance could be preferred over twin block appliance when dentoalveolar and slight retrusive effect on the maxilla is desired especially for individuals in postpubertal growth spurt.
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.