ArticleJournal of orthodontic science2024
Superior effect of mini-implant anchorage in the treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion.
Article in Journal of orthodontic science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mandibular Molar Distalization Using Interradicular Microimplants and Direct Anchorage: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- Efficiency and three-dimensional effects of maxillary canine distalization using Blue Elgiloy T-loop mechanics: A prospective study.Journal of orthodontic science · 2026Article
- Article
- Maxillary incisors and molars with conventional and skeletal anchorage device: A randomized controlled trial.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Clinical efficacy of micro-implant anchorage in orthodontic treatment.American journal of translational research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of mini-implant (MI) anchorage versus conventional anchorage for the treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study was conducted on 64 patients with skeletal class II malocclusion. The patients were divided into two groups: 1) 32 patients underwent conventional anchorage, and 2) 32 patients underwent MI anchorage. Cephalometric radiographs were taken pre-treatment, and the data were compared with post-treatment measurements.
resultsThe age and gender distribution between the conventional and MI anchorage groups was similar, and the differences were statistically significant. The SNA and SNB angles post-treatment were reduced compared to pre-treatment measurements in both groups. The MI anchorage demonstrated a superior subsidence effect, reducing the level of forward displacement of the first molars in the maxilla. The MI group also exhibited less extrusion of the molars compared to the conventional group. In skeletal class II cases, especially in patients with a high mandibular angle using MI anchorage helped prevent the mandible from rotating counterclockwise, thus improving aesthetics rather than worsening them after treatment. In 75% of the cases in the MI anchorage group, the outcome was assessed as "greatly improved" based on the PAR index.
conclusionsMI anchorage was more effective than conventional anchorage. It allows for greater posterior movement and intrusion of the maxillary incisors while maintaining or rotating the mandibular plane counterclockwise.
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.