ArticleFrontiers in oral health2024
Comparison between twin block appliance and mandibular advancement on clear aligners in the improvement of airway dimension: incremental versus maximum bite advancement.
Article in Frontiers in oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of a Novel Mono-Block Splint Versus a Twin-Block Splint for Anterior Disc Displacement With Reduction: A Randomised Controlled Trial.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2026Trial
- Numerical simulation and functional evaluation of upper airway before and after twin block treatment with different respiratory pathways.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Soft tissue evaluation of functional therapy in growing patients with class II malocclusion: mandibular advancement vs. twin block-a retrospective study.Frontiers in dental 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of the present retrospective study was to compare the changes resulting from treatment using the MA and the TB with special regard to the oro-and naso-pharyngeal sagittal airway dimensions in subjects with dentoskeletal Class II malocclusions and positive history of Sleep Disorder Breathing (SDB) diagnosed through the Pediatric Sleep Questionnaire (PSQ). Materials and methods: This retrospective study involved 2 groups of subjects: patients treated with Twin Block (TB group: Results: In both treated groups there was an increase in the airways dimensions and an improvement in symptoms related SDB. The statistical comparison of the changes between T1 and T2 in the TB group showed a significant increment in upper airway size (PNS-AD2, +1.50 mm + -3.30; McNamara's upper pharynx dimension, +2.21 + -4.21) after active treatment. The MA group showed similar results during active treatment with a significant increase in both upper (PNS-AD2, +2.72 + -2.65; McNamara's upper pharynx dimension, +2.97 + -3.07) and lower (PNS-AD1, +2.17 mm + -3.54) airway size. Conclusions: Despite the different structure of these two devices and the different advancement protocols, both appliances were valuable as a suitable treatment option for Class II patients with respiratory disorders, inducing an increase of upper and lower airway size and a significant reduction in diurnal symptoms.
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.