ArticleHead & face medicine2024
Upper airways changes associated with orthodontic molar distalization by Pendulum appliance in adolescent patients: a multicenter retrospective cephalometric study.
Article in Head & face medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Herbst and Pendex appliances treatment on the upper airway: A cone-beam computed tomography analysis.American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2026Article
- Effect of clear aligners on distalization of maxillary first molars in mixed dentition and early permanent dentition: a retrospective study.Clinical oral investigations · 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
objectivesThe purpose of this multicenter retrospective study was to perform a two-dimensional analysis of upper airway changes in adolescent patients following molar distalization with the Pendulum appliance. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study involved the cephalometric analysis of 88 patients, retrospectively categorized into two groups: skeletal Class II with a dental Class II molar relationship (36 patients, mean age 12.6 ± 1.1 years) and skeletal Class I with a dental Class II molar relationship (54 patients, mean age 12.3 ± 1.2 years). Changes were observed using lateral radiographs before (T0) and after Pendulum appliance removal (T1); treatment time averaged 7 months. Upper airways were subsequently analyzed by tracing lateral radiographs. The Shapiro-Wilk test showed a normal distribution of the data, therefore parametric tests were used for statistical analysis. Intragroup changes between T0 and T1 were evaluated using paired t-tests, and intergroup differences were assessed using independent student t-tests; statistical significance was set at 0.05.
resultsStatistically significant differences were observed in the skeletal measurements that characterized both groups, particularly in ANB and Wits appraisal, at T0 (P < 0.001). After molar distalization, Class I and Class II groups reported no statistically significant differences with changes almost equal to zero between timepoints (P > 0.05). Additionally, intergroup comparisons of airway changes at T1 did not show statistically significant differences (P > 0.05).
conclusionsThe Pendulum appliance does not significantly change the upper airway dimensions in Class I and Class II malocclusion patients, thereby minimizing potential respiratory risks.
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.