Trial reportDental press journal of orthodontics2024
Facial soft tissue changes in adolescent patients treated with three different functional appliances: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 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.
- Evaluation of the dental and skeletal effects of mandibular advancement by herbst appliance combined with miniscrews: a retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Herbst and Twin Block appliances in Class II malocclusion management for children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
- Does Cranial Base Angle Make a Difference in the Effectiveness of Functional Orthopedic Treatment? A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
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
introductionPatients with Class II, division 1 malocclusion generally seek treatment to improve facial esthetics. Therefore, the orthodontist needs to know the changes in the soft profile produced by functional appliances.
objectiveThis study evaluated the soft tissue profile changes in patients treated during the peak of the pubertal growth spurt.
methodsThirty selected patients were randomized into three treatment groups: Twin Block (TB), Herbst with dental anchorage (HDA), and Herbst with skeletal anchorage (HSA). All patients had computed tomographic images: pretreatment (T1) and after 12 months of active treatment (T2). Twenty-four soft tissue cephalometric measures were analyzed. The normality of all data was assessed by the Shapiro-Wilk test. Intragroup comparisons were analyzed using the t-paired test; the inter-group comparisons were determined through ANOVA and the post-hoc Tukey test.
resultsAt T1, no significant differences were observed between groups. At T2, in the intragroup comparison, facial soft tissue changes were statistically significant in the three groups for the lower lip, sulcus inferioris, facial soft tissue convexity in HDA group and TB group, and H angle in HDA group and HSA group, and soft tissue pogonium in TB group. In the inter-group comparison, no statistically significant differences were observed.
conclusionIt can be concluded that there were significant changes in soft tissue measurements that benefited Class II, division 1 patient's facial profile treated with the functional appliances Twin Block, Herbst, and Herbst with skeletal anchorage. Nevertheless, no significant differences were detected among the effects obtained by the three treatment protocols.
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.