ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2022
Changes in Angulation and Eruption Space of Developing Mandibular Third Molars Following Twin Block Treatment.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2022. 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.
- Scientific overview of mandibular advancement devices: a bibliometric and altmetric analysis.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the effect of extraction in comparison to distalization on the maxillary third molars in class II malocclusion: a retrospective study.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the effects of twin block functional appliance three dimensionally on mandibular third molars angulation and eruption space.
methodsThis retrospective study included cone beam computer tomography (CBCTs) of 34 Class II females (11.84 ± 0.94 years) who were divided into 2 groups. The first group received a standard twin block appliance (intervention group), while the other was considered as a control. CBCT images were obtained for all patients before the start of the intervention (T0) and after the active phase (9.4 ± 1.33 months) in the intervention group and at the beginning (T0) and after the observation period (T1) in the control group (8.12 ± 2.72 months). Measurements for the retromolar space were performed on the axial views, while those for molar angulation were performed on sagittal views as well as CBCT panoramic reformatted images.
resultsBoth twin block and control groups showed non-significant changes in the angular measurements (sagittal L8/MP° and panoramic L8/MP°) denoting lack of change in the angulation of the third molars in relation to the mandibular plane after treatment. On the other hand, retromolar spaces showed a statistically significant increase (P ≤ .05) in both groups. The change was much significant for the twin block group, measuring 1.95 mm and 1.56 mm on the right and left sides, respectively, as compared to the control group which revealed less than 1 mm increase in the retromolar space on both the right and left sides.
conclusionsIn spite of their positive impact on the retromolar space, twin block bite jumping appliances have a non-significant influence on the angulation of the developing mandibular third molars.
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.