Observational studyClinical oral investigations2024
A comparative study of Twin-Block and van Beek Headgear-Activator on the three-dimensional morphology of the upper airway in growing children with mandibular retraction in skeletal class II malocclusion.
Observational study in Clinical oral investigations, 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.
- Efficacy of van Beek headgear activator in adolescents with UARS and hyperdivergent skeletal class II malocclusion: dentofacial morphology, airway, and growth.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Progress of Multimodal Imaging: Bridging Orthodontics to Comprehensive Oral Multidisciplinary Care.International dental journal · 2026Review
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
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the variations in the upper airway of children with skeletal Class II mandibular retrognathism treated with van Beek Headgear-Activator (vBHGA) and Twin-Block (TB) appliances. MATERIALS AND
methods40 children were involved in this retrospective study and divided into two intervention groups: the vBHGA group and the TB group, each comprising 20 individuals with an average age of 11.13 years. Employing Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Geometric Morphometric analysis, a comprehensive assessment of the upper airway's volume, minimum cross-sectional area (m-CSA), and 3D shape characteristics was conducted pre-and post-treatment.
resultsThe total volume, oropharynx volume, oropharynx m-CSA, and hypopharynx m-CSA significantly increased in both the vBHGA and TB groups (p < 0.05). The sole discrepancy between the two groups was observed in comparing the nasopharynx m-CSA (p < 0.05). A morphological difference was observed in the vBHGA group before and after treatment (p < 0.05), characterized by a wider and shorter airway, positioning of the posterior nasal spine closer to the anterior inferior area, and a more posterior nasopharyngeal wall. However, there were no significant shape differences between the two groups or before and after treatment within the TB group.
conclusionIt appears that both vBHGA and TB interventions contribute positively to alleviating upper airway constriction. Nonetheless, the vBHGA group exhibits more alterations in the configuration of the nasopharynx. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both orthodontic appliances have a positive impact on the upper airway but still have differences, emphasizing the need for individualized consideration when selecting orthodontic interventions. CLINICAL
trial registrationThis study was also registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry with registration number ChiCTR2400086867.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39729161What 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.