Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37303011›Full record

Trial reportProgress in orthodontics2023

Dentofacial effects of miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction on prepubertal children with maxillary deficiency: a randomized controlled trial.

Ahmed Mohamed Kamel, Nour Eldin Tarraf, Ahmed Maher Fouda, Ahmad Mohammed Hafez, Ahmed El-Bialy, Benedict Wilmes

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Progress in orthodontics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Skeletal Anchorage in Class III Malocclusion in Early Adolescence.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Ahmed Mohamed KamelDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, 1 El-Gomhouria St, Mansoura, Dakahlia Governorate, 35516, Egypt. ahmedkamel@mans.edu.eg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1940-5270
Nour Eldin TarrafDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Discipline of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, Sydney Dental School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Ahmed Maher FoudaDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, 1 El-Gomhouria St, Mansoura, Dakahlia Governorate, 35516, Egypt.
Ahmad Mohammed HafezDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, 1 El-Gomhouria St, Mansoura, Dakahlia Governorate, 35516, Egypt.
Ahmed El-BialyDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, 1 El-Gomhouria St, Mansoura, Dakahlia Governorate, 35516, Egypt.
Benedict WilmesDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Mansoura University · EGHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe introduction of bone-anchored maxillary protraction eliminated the side effects of facemask in the early treatment of patients with maxillary retrusion. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction (MAMP) and compare them with the growth changes in an untreated control group in growing patients with Class III malocclusion.

methodsForty growing patients with Class III malocclusion and retrognathic maxilla were randomly allocated into two groups: treated and control groups. In the treated group, patients were treated with full-time intermaxillary Class III elastics (C3E) anchored by a hybrid hyrax (HH) in the maxilla and a bone-supported bar in the mandible. Protraction was stopped after obtaining a positive overjet. Cephalometric radiographs were acquired before and after the treatment. Data were statistically analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Intergroup comparisons were also made using analysis of covariance with the readings at T0 as a covariate.

resultsForty patients agreed to participate, and 30 of them completed the study (treated group, n = 17; control group, n = 13). The average treatment duration was 11.9 months. MAMP resulted in a significant maxillary advancement (A-VR, 4.34 mm) with significant control over the mandibular growth. No significant increase in the mandibular plane angle was found in the treated group compared with the control group. The upper and lower incisors showed significant protrusion in the treated group.

conclusionsWithin the limitations of this study and high attrition rate, the MAMP protocol can effectively increase maxillary forward growth with good control over the growth of the mandible antero-posteriorly and vertically.

Indexed as

Malocclusion, Angle Class IIIOverbiteCephalometryChildDuration of TherapyHumansMandibleMaxillaClass III malocclusionHybrid hyraxMaxillary protractionSkeletal anchorage

Identifiers

PMID37303011
PMCPMC10258186
OpenAlexW4380272636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.