ArticleJournal of orthodontic science2024
Assessment of the condylar response of two differently anchored fixed functional appliances in class II malocclusion in young adult orthodontic patients: A randomized clinical trial.
Article in Journal of orthodontic science, 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMeasuring the condylar volume changes after treatment with skeletally anchored type IV Herbst appliance vs. Twin Force Bite Corrector (TFBC) in class II malocclusion in young adult patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty class II malocclusion participants were randomly involved in our randomized clinical study. They are divided equally into two groups: group I (10 patients with an age range of 16 to 18 years and a mean age of (17.15 ± 0.62) (five males and five females) with a mean Angle formed between (A) point and (Nasion) point and (B) point, to determine anteroposterior relation between maxilla and mandible (ANB) of 6.20 (1.03) and a mean mandibular length of 106.1 (1.7), who were treated by a skeletally anchored type IV Herbst appliance, supported at the mandible by two mini-plates fixed bilaterally at the mandibular symphysis; group II (10 patients with an age range of 15 to 18 years and a mean age of (16.85 ± 0.33) (six males and four females) with a mean ANB of 6.80 (0.89) and a mean mandibular length of 107.3 (2.36), who were treated by a TFBC that was installed just mesial to the tube of the maxillary first permanent molar and distal to the bracket of the lower canine for 4 months. According to the Index of Orthognathic Functional Treatment Need (IOFTN) index, the participants in both groups have grade 4 (great need for treatment) as they have excessive overjet (6-9 mm). Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was taken just before installing fixed functional appliances and after the removal. The condylar volume was measured using Dolphin software. Parametric measurements were performed by the independent
resultsOn the right side, the Herbst group recorded a percent increase (median = 1.23%), while TFBC recorded a median percent decrease (-7.85%). This change is statistically significant (
conclusionsThe difference in the condylar volume was significantly higher with the mini-plate anchored Herbst appliance than with the dentally anchored TFBC group.
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.