ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2024
Comparison of posttreatment stability after total mandibular arch distalization with mini-implants and mandibular setback surgery.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Three-dimensional changes of the mandibular arch after total arch distalization in skeletal Class III malocclusion.The Angle orthodontist · 2025Article
- Camouflage treatment of severe skeletal class III malocclusion with effective torque control in an adolescent combined with forward functional shift and hypodivergent.BMC oral health · 2025Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare posttreatment stability in skeletal Class III patients between those treated by total mandibular arch distalization (TMAD) with buccal mini-implants and those by mandibular setback surgery (MSS). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe samples included 40 Class III adults, 20 treated by TMAD using buccal interradicular mini-implants and 20 treated with MSS. Lateral cephalograms were taken at pretreatment, posttreatment, and at least 1-year follow-up, and 24 variables were compared using statistical analysis.
resultsMandibular first molars moved distally 1.9 mm with intrusion of 1.1 mm after treatment in the TMAD group. The mandibular incisors moved distally by 2.3 mm. The MSS group exhibited a significant skeletal change of the mandible, whereas the TMAD group did not. During retention, there were no skeletal or dental changes other than 0.6 mm labial movement of the mandibular incisors (P < .05) in the MSS group. There was 1.4° of mesial tipping (P < .01) and 0.4 mm of mesial movement of the mandibular molars and 1.9° of labial tipping (P < .001) and 0.8 mm of mesial movement of the mandibular incisors in the TMAD group. These dental changes were not significantly different between the two groups.
conclusionsThe TMAD group showed a slightly decreased overjet with labial tipping of the mandibular incisors and mesial tipping of the first molars during retention. Posttreatment stability of the mandibular dentition was not significantly different between the groups. It can be useful to plan camouflage treatment by TMAD with mini-implants in mild-to-moderate Class III 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.