ArticleClinical oral investigations2022
Posttreatment stability of an anterior open-bite by molar intrusion compared with 2-jaw surgery - a retrospective study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of root proximity of miniscrew implant and its correlation with failure.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Noninvasive conservative management of anterior open bite treated with TADs versus clear aligner therapy.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare post-treatment stability in patients with anterior open-bite (AOB) between those treated surgically (orthognathic 2-jaw surgery) and non-surgically (molar intrusion using orthodontic miniscrews). MATERIALS AND
methodsAll subjects had initial overbite (OB) < -1 mm and lateral cephalograms taken before treatment (T0), immediately after AOB correction (T1), after orthodontic treatment (T2), and at least 1 year after treatment (T3). The non-surgical group was enrolled retrospectively; then, the surgical group was matched by OB, sex, and age to the non-surgical group (n = 21 each). Changes in cephalometric measurements during treatment (T1-T0), finishing (T2-T1), and retention (T3-T2) periods were compared between two groups.
resultsOB increased by 4.5-5.1 mm during the treatment period with 3.3 mm upward movement of the maxillary first molar (U6) in both groups. Changes in OB were not significantly different between the groups: 0.5-0.9 mm increase during the finishing period but 1.0 mm decrease during the retention period (P > 0.05). U6 moved 0.5 mm downward in non-surgical group and 0.1 mm upward in the surgical group during the finishing period, and 1.0 mm and 0.4 mm downward in the non-surgical and surgical groups, respectively, during the retention period.
conclusionsPost-treatment stability of AOB was similar for surgical and non-surgical methods (76.8 - 78.7%), although U6 moved more downward in the non-surgical group than in the surgical group. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: AOB without severe skeletal deformity can be treated by either molar intrusion or orthognathic surgery with similar treatment outcome and stability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35821135What 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.