ArticleBMC oral health2024
Evaluation of the diagnostic ability of the Fränkel manoeuvre to detect the contributing jaw in angle class II division 1 malocclusion.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundA correct diagnosis of patients with an Angle Class II malocclusion is needed to guide treatment decisions toward the contributing jaw and to achieve better treatment outcomes. The aim of the study is to evaluate the diagnostic potential of the Fränkel manoeuvre (FM) for detecting the components determining sagittal discrepancy in Angle Class II division 1. MATERIALS AND
methodsAnonymous questionnaires containing photographs were distributed totwo groups: general practitioner (GP) dentists and orthodontists. The level of the patient's profile aesthetics before (T0) and after (T1) the manoeuvre was determined using a 100 mm visual analog scale, and the 'profile improvement' score was defined as T1 minus T0. The diagnostic ability of the FM was calculated by comparison with lateral cephalometry as a reference standard using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
resultsA total of 102 respondents participated in the survey; 40 were orthodontists, and 62 were GP dentists. According to the post-FM images, the "profile improvement" score (T1-T0) was significantly greater in patients with mandibular retrusion than in those with maxillary protrusion (p < 0.05). The predictive power of FM, coinciding with the area under the ROC curve, was 0.62 for GPs and 0.78 for orthodontists.
conclusionsThe FM method is a useful and accurate tool for diagnosing skeletal Angle Class II malocclusion etiology (mandibular retrusion or maxillary protrusion), especially when used by orthodontists.
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.