ArticleEuropean journal of orthodontics2024
Maxillary protraction anchored on miniplates versus miniscrews: three-dimensional dentoskeletal comparison.
Article in European journal of orthodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term comparison of maxillary protraction with hybrid hyrax-facemask vs. hybrid hyrax-mentoplate protocols using Alt-RAMEC: a 5-year randomized controlled trial.European journal of orthodontics · 2025Trial
- Three-dimensional dynamic evaluation of facial soft tissue changes following anterior traction in growing Angle Class III malocclusion patients.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of the Effects of Miniscrew and Miniplate Skeletal Anchorage in the Orthopedic Treatment of Growing Class III Malocclusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Treatment of Class III malocclusion in two phases. functional orthopedics and fixed appliances: A valid option.Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis retrospective study aimed to compare the three-dimensional (3D) outcomes of the novel miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction (MAMP) therapy and the bone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP) therapy.
methodsThe sample comprised growing patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion treated with two skeletal anchored maxillary protraction protocols. The MAMP group comprised 22 patients (9 female, 13 male; 10.9 ± 0.9 years of age at baseline) treated with Class III elastics anchored on a hybrid hyrax expander in the maxilla and two mandibular miniscrews distally to the permanent canines. The BAMP group comprised 24 patients (14 female, 10 male; 11.6 ± 1.1 years of age at baseline) treated with Class III elastic anchored in two titanium miniplates in the infra-zygomatic crest and two miniplates in the mesial of the mandibular permanent canines. Three-dimensional displacements were measured in the pre- and post-treatment cone-beam computed tomography scans superimposed on the cranial base using the Slicer Automated Dental Tools module of 3D Slicer software (www.slicer.org). Mean differences (MD) between groups and 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained for all variables. Intergroup comparison was performed using the Analysis of Covariance (P < .05).
resultsBoth groups showed improvements after treatment. The MAMP group showed a smaller anterior (MD: -1.09 mm; 95% CI, -2.07 to -0.56) and 3D (MD: -1.27 mm; 95% CI, -2.16 to -0.74) displacements of the maxilla after treatment when compared with BAMP. Both groups showed negligible and similar anteroposterior changes in the mandible (MD: 0.33 mm; 95% CI, -2.15 to 1.34). A greater increase in the nasal cavity width (MD of 2.36; 95% CI, 1.97-3.05) was observed in the MAMP group when compared with BAMP. LIMITATIONS: The absence of an untreated control group to assess the possible growth impact in these findings is a limitation of this study.
conclusionBoth BAMP and MAMP therapies showed adequate 3D outcomes after treatment. However, BAMP therapy produced a greater maxillary advancement with treatment, while MAMP therapy showed greater transversal increases in the nasal cavity.
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.