ArticleDentistry journal2024
The Efficacy of the RME II System Compared with a Herbst Appliance in the Treatment of Class II Skeletal Malocclusion in Growing Patients: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Dentistry 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.
- Comparative Dentoskeletal Effects of Two Fixed Systems in Treating Class II Malocclusion: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Mandibular Arch Morphology in Normodivergent Patients With Impacted Maxillary Canines: A Case-Control Study.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Comparison Between the Likert Scale and the Visual Analog Scale for the 3D Esthetic Assessment of Primary Cleft Lip Repair: A Prospective Study.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Dimensional stability of pet-g clear aligners with different thickness through cyclic compressive load tests: AnJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- The Efficacy of the RME II System Compared with the Sander Bite-Jumping Appliance: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the Rapid Maxillary Expander (RME) II System compared to a Herbst appliance and a control group in the treatment of class II skeletal malocclusions in growing patients. (2) Methods: A total of 30 class II patients treated using the RME II System (group R) were compared with 30 patients treated with a Herbst appliance (group H) and 30 untreated class II children (group C). Cephalograms were compared at the start (T0) and after 24 months (T1). Nine cephalometric parameters were analyzed: SN-MP, SN-PO, ANB, AR-GO-ME, AR-GO-N, N-GO-ME, SN-PP, LFH, CO-GN, 1+SN, IMPA, OVERJET, and OVERBITE. Since the variables failed the normality test, a Wilcoxon test was performed for a pairwise comparison of the cephalometric measurements taken at T0 (pre-treatment) and at T1 (post-treatment). ANOVA with Tukey post hoc correction was used to evaluate the differences among the groups. (3) Results: ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference for all analyzed variables except for AR-GO-ME, AR-GO-N, and N-GO-ME. Post hoc Tukey's HSD test showed the following difference: the SN-PO angle in group H was 3.59° greater than in group R; the LFH in group H was 4.13 mm greater than in group R. The mandibular length (CO-GN) in group H was 3.94 mm greater than in group R; IMPA in group H was 6.4° greater than in group R; and the ANB angle in group H was 1.47° greater than in group R. (4) Conclusions: The RME II System is an effective therapeutic device for class II skeletal malocclusion treatment in growing patients.
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.