ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Incisor and Soft Tissue Characteristics of Adult Bimaxillary Protrusion Patients among Different Skeletal Anteroposterior Classifications.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Correlation Between Lip Prominence and Orthodontic Incisor Repositioning Within an Aesthetic Triangle Framework.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the upper incisors (U1), lower incisors (L1), and soft tissue profiles of bimaxillary protrusion (BM) adult patients among skeletal Class I (BM1), II (BM2) and III (BM3). Understanding these characteristics would be useful for incisor and lip diagnostics in different skeletal classifications. Fourteen linear and twelve angular variables of the incisors and lips were evaluated in 214 lateral cephalograms (BM1 = 91, BM2 = 84, BM3 = 39). ANOVA and Bonferroni tests compared the measurements. BM1 and BM3 exhibited a greater U1 position and U1 inclination than the norms, while BM2 presented only a greater U1 position than the norms but normal U1 inclination. BM1 and BM3 had a significantly greater U1 position than BM2. BM1 and BM2 demonstrated a greater L1 position and L1 inclination than the norms, whereas BM3 displayed only a greater L1 position than the norms but normal L1 inclination. BM2 had the most anterior L1 position, whereas BM3 had the least anterior position. Only BM2 had a longer anterior dental height (ADH) than the norms, while BM1 and BM3 had a normal ADH and the significantly shortest ADH, respectively. Only BM1 had a normal upper incisor display at rest (U1R), while BM2 and BM3 displayed an increased and decreased U1R, respectively, with significant differences among the three groups. The most significantly protruded upper and lower lips were presented in BM2, but these were exhibited the least in BM3. The most significant acute nasolabial angle (NLA) was found in BM3, whereas BM2 presented the least acute NLA. A normal lip-chin-throat angle (LCTA) was observed in BM1 and BM3, while only BM2 had a greater LCTA than the norms. The most significant obtuse LCTA was found in BM2, while BM3 had the least obtuse LCTA. Therefore, both U1 and L1 in all groups presented protrusion and proclination, except for U1 in BM2, while L1 in BM3 exhibited normal inclination. The ADH and U1R were increased in BM2 but decreased in BM3. The most acute NLA was found in BM3, whereas the least acute was found in BM2. The most obtuse LCTA was in BM2, while the least was in BM3.
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.