ArticleJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2024
Third molar angulation and retromolar space after functional orthodontic treatment : Evaluation of panoramic radiographs after monoblock or Herbst appliance.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this respectively cohort study was to evaluate the lower second and third molars and canine angulations, retromolar space and occlusal relationships after functional orthodontic treatments with the monoblock or Herbst appliance using panoramic radiographs.
methodsPre- and posttreatment cephalometric and panoramic radiographs of 133 patients (mean age 13.89 ± 1.14 years) treated non-extraction with monoblock (n: 44), Herbst (n: 45) and fixed orthodontic appliances (control group; n: 44) were included to the study. Dental and skeletal measurements were performed on cephalometric radiographs. The angle between the third and second molars, and canines with the lower border of the mandible and the occlusal plane, gonial angle, the angle between the third and second molars and the retromolar space width were assessed on pre- and posttreatment panoramic radiographs. Paired and independent t tests were used for the statistical analysis of the data for intragroup and intergroup comparisons.
resultsFunctional treatment with both the monoblock and the Herbst appliances resulted in improvement of skeletal class II relationships. Retromolar space significantly increased in the functional appliance groups compared to the control group (p ≤ 0.001), but improvement of the angulations of posterior teeth was significant only in the monoblock group (p ≤ 0.001).
conclusionWhile both the Herbst and monoblock appliances led to an increase in retromolar space, monoblock treatment resulted in more favorable angulation of the third molars compared to the Herbst treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38378857What 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.