ArticleJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2024
Influence of the force magnitude of fixed functional appliances for class II subdivision 1 treatment-a cephalometric study.
Article in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Treatment effects of the Sander II appliance in class II therapy : A cephalometric, retrospective case-control study.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the skeletal and dental effects of a hybrid fixed functional appliance (FFA) used with different force magnitudes for class II subdivision 1 treatment.
methodsTreatment records from 70 patients were evaluated: 35 patients were treated with a FFA with standard activation (SUS group) and 35 with a FFA with an additional force-generating spring (TSUS group). Two control groups were matched from the American Association of Orthodontists Foundation (AAOF) Craniofacial Growth Legacy Collection for comparison with the two treatment groups to determine skeletal and dental treatment effects. The cephalometric parameters at T0 (before treatment) and T1 (before debonding) were assessed using the Munich standard cephalometric analysis and by the sagittal occlusal analysis (SO) according to Pancherz. Data were analyzed statistically using SPSS.
resultsNo statistically significant difference for any cephalometric parameter was observed between the SUS and TSUS groups concerning the measurements at T0 and T1. Both treatment groups exhibited an effective class II therapy mainly due to a significant reduction in SNA, and ANB and an increase in SNB. In contrast to the control group, as the result of treatment a skeletal class I was achieved.
conclusionNo significant statistical differences were observed between the patient group treated with the FFA with standard activation (SUS) and those treated with an additional spring (TSUS) regarding the cephalometric parameters investigated. Both variants were equally effective in treating class II division 1 malocclusions.
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.