ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2023
Comparison of treatment effects between two types of facemasks in early Class III patients.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- RAMPA Therapy: Effects on Craniofacial Growth Assessed by Coben Analysis and Statistical Evaluation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Class III Malocclusion in Growing Patients: Facemask vs. Functional Appliance: Experimental Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Early Class III Malocclusion Treatments-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Orthopedic Devices for Skeletal Class III Malocclusion Treatment in Growing Patients: A Comparative Effectiveness Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Clinical Management of Facemasks for Early Treatment of Class III Malocclusion: A Survey among SIDO Members.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Comparison of treatment effects between two types of facemasks in early Class III patients.Clinical and experimental dental research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the short-term treatment effects between two types of facemasks in skeletal Class III patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 40 skeletal Class III subjects (mean age: 7.7 years) who had been treated with protraction facemasks with forehead straps (PFFS) or Petit type facemasks (PTF). Lateral cephalograms were analyzed at pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) with an average interval of 9 months.
resultsAt T1, PFFS and PTF groups showed similar sagittal, vertical dentoskeletal patterns. From T1 to T2, both groups presented significant forward movement of the maxilla, posterior movement and clockwise rotation of the mandible (all p < .001), labioversion of the maxillary incisors, and linguoversion of the mandibular incisors. They showed increased overjet (p < .001). Although there were no significant differences in the number of changes in most dentoskeletal variables between the two groups, the PFFS group showed more anterior rotation of the palatal plane and backward rotation of the mandible compared to the PTF group, resulting in a significant decrease (-0.42 mm) in overbite (p < .05).
conclusionsBoth PFFS and PTF showed no significant differences in most skeletal and dental changes, except for overbite. These findings might be helpful for clinicians in selecting the types of facemasks for growing Class III malocclusion patients.
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.