ReviewThe Saudi dental journal2024
Myobrace versus twin block in the treatment of class II malocclusion in Children: A systematic review.
Review in The Saudi dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cytotoxicity Assessment of the Effects of Pre-Orthodontic Trainer Appliances on Human Gingival Fibroblasts: AnTurkish journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- 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
- Effectiveness of Myobrace Therapy in Correcting Anterior Crossbite in Early Mixed Dentition: A Retrospective Study.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of Elastodontic Devices for Correcting Sagittal Malocclusions in Mixed Dentition Patients: A Scoping Review.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- The impact of adenoid hypertrophy across pediatric age groups on maxillomandibular development and position.Jornal de pediatriaArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: One of today's largest global problems is malocclusion. We must prevent this through the screening and early treatment of young children, because malocclusion treatment conducted during a child's growth and development stage either the primary or mixed dentition era yields the best outcomes. Functional appliances are usually used during initial orthodontic treatment, such as myobrace and twin block appliances. Myobraces come in various sizes. The size chosen depends on the treatment objectives, which may include correcting class II malocclusions. The twin block appliance is a functional device commonly employed to treat class II malocclusions. Purpose: This investigation's main goal was to compare the efficacy of the myobrace and twin block appliances in class II malocclusion treatment to select a more appropriate pediatric dentistry device. Results: A total of 5 articles were selected from 306 articles based on relevant keywords. All selected studies were conducted within the last 10 years. Discussion: Myobrace and twin block appliances can address overjet issues and achieve significant overjet measurement reductions. This appliance promotes mandibular growth and enhances the facial profiles of individuals with class II malocclusions. Conclusion: In order to treat individuals with class II malocclusions, the myobrace and the twin block both address skeletal and dentoalveolar discrepancies. But compared to the myobrace, the twin block appliance had more noteworthy outcomes.
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.