ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2024
Comparison of the Effects of Fixed and Removable Functional Orthodontic Treatment on the Mandibular Trabecular Bone in Fractal Analysis.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Fractal Analysis-Based Comparison of Mandibular Bone Remodeling in Clear Aligner and Fixed Orthodontic Therapies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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
Objective: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the effects of the Twin block and Herbst appliances on the mandibular trabecular pattern using fractal dimension analysis (FDA) of panoramic radiographs (PRs). Methods: The PRs of 50 subjects with skeletal Class II malocclusion who underwent the Twin block (T-group, average age: 11.63±0.87; 25 girls, 25 boys), 50 subjects with skeletal Class II malocclusion who underwent the Herbst (H-group, average age: 11.72±0.91; 27 girls, 23 boys), and 50 controls (C-group average age: 11.67±0.83; 24 girls, 26 boys) were selected. The condyle, corpus, and angulus regions of all groups in the mandible were examined using FDA. Results: The condylar region (p≤0.001) and corpus mandible in the treatment groups (T-group: right, p≤0.05, left, p≤0.01; H-group: p≤0.05), as well as the left and right condylar region (p≤0.001) and left corpus mandible (p≤0.05) in the C-group, all indicated substantial increases in FDA between T0 and T1. Inter-group comparisons indicated that the T-group had greater variances in the condyle (p≤0.001) compared to the H group. Conclusion: As the findings revealed both Twin block and Herbst appliances not only contributed to the dentoalveolar structure but also provided remodeling of the mandibular trabecular structure. Consequently, the null hypothesis was rejected.
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.