ArticleHead & face medicine2024
Dentofacial and skeletal effects of two orthodontic maxillary protraction protocols: bone anchors versus facemask.
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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison Between Skeletally-Anchored and Conventional Maxillary Protraction in Growing Class ΙΙΙ Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Pooled it
- Retrospective Descriptive Case Series on the Use of AMCOPBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Deep learning-based identification and maturation assessment of the zygomaticomaxillary suture in cone-beam computed tomography images.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Article
- Class III Malocclusion in Growing Patients: Facemask vs. Functional Appliance: Experimental Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Therapeutic Approaches Dealing with Malocclusion Type III-Narrative Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Bone-anchored maxillary protraction versus conventional orthopedic treatment for Class III malocclusion in children under 12 years: A systematic review.Journal of orthodontic science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMaxillary retrognathia and/or mandibular prognathia are resulting in class III malocclusion. Regarding orthodontic class III malocclusion treatment, the literature reports several treatment approaches. This comparative clinical study investigated two maxillary protraction protocols including bone anchors and Delaire type facemask.
methodsCephalometric radiographs of n = 31 patients were used for data acquisition. The patients were divided into two groups according to their treatment protocol: bone anchored protraction (n = 12, 8 female, 4 male; mean age 11.00 ± 1.76 years; average application: 13.50 ± 5.87 months) and facemask protraction (n = 19, 11 female, 8 male; mean age 6.74 ± 1.15 years; average application: 9.95 ± 4.17 months). The evaluation included established procedures for measurements of the maxilla, mandibula, incisor inclination and soft tissue. Statistics included Shapiro-Wilk- and T-Tests for the radiographs. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe cephalometric analysis showed differences among the two groups. SNA angle showed significant improvements during protraction with bone anchors (2.30 ± 1.18°) with increase in the Wits appraisal of 2.01 ± 2.65 mm. SNA angle improved also during protraction with facemask (1.22 ± 2.28°) with increase in the Wits appraisal of 1.85 ± 4.09 mm. Proclination of maxillary incisors was larger in patients with facemask (3.35 ± 6.18°) and ML-SN angle increased more (1.05 ± 1.51°) than in patients with bone anchors. Loosening rate of bone anchors was 14.58%.
conclusionsBoth treatment protocols led to correction of a class III malocclusion. However, this study was obtained immediately after protraction treatment and longitudinal observations after growth spurt will be needed to verify the treatment effects over a longer period. The use of skeletal anchorage for maxillary protraction reduces unwanted side effects and increases skeletal effects needed for class III correction.
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.