ArticleBioinformation2023
Removable versus fixed myo-functional appliances in class II malocclusion among Indians.
Article in Bioinformation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coefficient of efficiency and effectiveness of functional appliances in class II malocclusion treatment : A systematic review.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- 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
- Review
- Effect of Fixed Orthodontic Appliances on Oral Microbial Changes and Dental Caries Risk in Children: A 6-Month Prospective Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is of interest to compare two myofunctional appliances (frankal appliance and twin bloc) and two fixed orthodontic appliances (PowerScope and Forsus) in management of class II div 1 malocclusion. A total of 56 Class II division 1 malocclusion patients indicated for treatment with myofunctional appliances and fixed functional appliances were randomized. They were equally divided among frankal appliance (n=14), twin block appliance (n=14), PowerScope (American Orthodontics) (n=14), Forsus (3M Unitek Corp) groups (n=14). Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of all appliances were compared. SNB increased remarkably by 4.2° in the Twin block group and it was high among all treatment groups. There was a significant decrease in vertical dimensions (SN-GoGn) in the Twin block (p = 0.002). Early treatment of Class II due to mandibular retrusion with Twin block functional appliance is recommended due to its favorable skeletal effect.
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.