ArticleHeliyon2024
Comparison between basal arch width in normal occlusions and class Ⅱ malocclusions by using cone-beam computed tomography.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison between two bone anchored force systems for correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion in growing patients: a randomized controlled clinical trial, part 2: short-term dentoalveolar changes.The Angle orthodontist · 2025Trial
- Accuracy of maxillary molar distalization with clear aligners in three-dimension: a retrospective study based on CBCT superimposition.Clinical oral investigations · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this research was to investigate the measurements of maxillary and mandibular basal arch width in male and female with normal occlusion, and to compare dental arch width difference between normal occlusion and ClassⅡ malocclusion groups could be helpful in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Methods: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images from 133 individuals (76 males and 57 females) with normal occlusion and 64 (25 males and 39 females) with skeletal Class II malocclusions were evaluated. The distances between canines, first molars (basal arch widths: BAW) and second molars were measured from CRs (center of resistance) of the teeth and the projection of first molars on buccal bones (WALA distance) were measured. Results: There were significant differences in male and female maxillary and mandibular dental transverse widths. The normal range of the maxilla and mandible basal bone widths differences were -2 mm-2 mm (-0.05 ± 2.17 mm). The normal occlusion and Class Ⅱ groups exhibited significant differences in the width of the intercanine and first molars. Sella-nasion-A point angle (SNA) and Sella-nasion-B point angle (SNB) in the Class Ⅱ male group were positively correlated with the width between the maxillary canines. For individuals with normal occlusions, the width of the mandible at the second molar was greater than that of the maxilla, so more attention should be paid to the width of the second molar when considering clinical treatment. Conclusion: Measuring the width of the maxilla and mandible basal bones from the resistance center of the first molar was a feasible and repeatable method can be used in clinical practice. The data could serve as a reference for orthodontic treatment planning. More consideration should be paid to the horizontal dental problems of the treatment plan for Class Ⅱ patients. And the width of the mandible at the second molar was greater than that of the maxilla, so more attention should be paid during treatment.
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.