ArticleEuropean oral research2022
Comparison of skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of two different mandibular advancement methods: conventional technique vs aesthetic approach.
Article in European oral research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of Outcomes in Patients who Underwent Traditional and Advanced Orthodontic Treatment: A Comparative Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Retrospective Evaluation of InvisalignDentistry journal · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of Clear Aligner Therapy in Orthodontic Management for Children with Mixed Dentition: A Scoping Review.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2025Review
- Three-dimensional spatial analysis of temporomandibular joint in adolescent Class II division 1 malocclusion patients: comparison of Twin-Block and clear functional aligner.Head & face medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two different mandibular advancement methods on skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue structures through cephalometric measurements. Materials and methods: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two different mandibular advancement methods on skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue structures through cephalometric measurements. Results: The mandibular base was observed to move forward significantly in both groups (p<0.05). However, the forward movement of the mandibular base was greater in the TB group than in the EA group (p<0.05). There was no difference in lower incisor protrusion between the two treatment methods. The EA device was found to cause a significant increase in vertical direction parameters (p<0.05). Conclusion: Both methods resulted in Class II malocclusion correction as well as an acceptable occlusion plus profile. The effects of EA were primarily dentoalveolar. In patients with high aesthetic expectations, EA could be an alternative for TB.
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.