SynthesisBMC oral health2024
Comparison of Twin Block appliance and Herbst appliance in the treatment of Class II malocclusion among children: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy of clear aligner mandibular advancement versus traditional functional appliances for skeletal Class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Postpubertal Assessment of Treatment Timing in Class II Malocclusion Treated with Twin Block Followed by Fixed Appliances: A Retrospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Herbst and Twin Block appliances in Class II malocclusion management for children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Timing of Orthodontic Intervention for Pediatric Class II Malocclusion: A Systematic Review on Early vs. Late Treatment Outcomes.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Retrospective Evaluation of InvisalignDentistry journal · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the PowerScope Appliance Effects on the Dentoskeletal and Soft Tissue for the Treatment of Class II Malocclusions.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
- Comparison of the Skeletal and Dento-Alveolar Changes Obtained with a Customized Elastodontic Appliance and Twin Block: A Prospective Investigation.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Oral Implications of Herbst Device Modification: A Case Report.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Early Intervention with a Preformed Eruption Guidance Appliance After the Excision of Cemento-Ossifying Fibroma: A Case Report.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A randomized clinical trial on innovative functional esthetic appliance for craniofacial growth modulation with 3D analysis of TMJ.Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Effects of Carriere Motion Appliance and Twin Block Appliances in Class II Correction-A Retrospective Study.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOur meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of applying Herbst and Twin Block appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion among children.
methodsDatabases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China VIP Database (VIP), and Wanfang were thoroughly searched from inception to August 9, 2023. The outcomes included skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was used as the effect indicator, and the effect size was expressed with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The heterogeneity of each outcome effect size was tested, and the heterogeneity statistic I
resultsA total of 12 studies involving 574 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Herbst appliance had a statistically significant increase in mandibular body length (WMD: 1.44, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.96, P < 0.001) compared with the Twin Block appliance. More increases in angle and distance of L1 to mandibular plane (MP) were found in the Herbst appliance compared with the Twin Block appliance. Significant and greater improvements in molar relationship (WMD: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.29, P = 0.002), posterior facial height (WMD: -1.23, 95% CI: -2.08 to -0.38, P = 0.005), convexity angle (WMD: -1.89, 95% CI: -3.12 to -0.66, P = 0.003), and Sella-Nasion plane angle (U1 to SN) (WMD: 3.34, 95% CI: 2.25 to 4.43, P < 0.001) were achieved in the Twin Block appliance. Herbst and Twin Block appliances produced similar effects in the skeletal and dentoalveolar changes including Sella-Nasion-point A (SNA), Sella-Nasion-point B, point A-Nasion-point B (ANB), overjet, and overbite.
conclusionAs the findings revealed both Herbst and Twin Block appliances contributed successfully to the correction of Class II malocclusion. Compared with the Twin Block appliance, the Herbst appliance may have more advantages in mandibular bone movement. Twin Block therapy resulted in more improvement in the aesthetics of the face.
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.