Observational studyPloS one2025
Soft and hard tissue changes after compensatory treatment in skeletal class III malocclusion.
Observational study in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Evaluation of Facial Soft Tissue Angles in Adolescents with Angle Class I, II, and III Malocclusion Using Profile Image Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Dentofacial changes following four premolar extraction camouflage treatment in Class III malocclusions: a retrospective cohort study with gender-based evaluation.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Camouflage Modalities of Treatment for Skeletal Class III Malocclusion in Adults-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Geometric Morphometric Analysis of Hard and Soft Tissue in Class III Malocclusion Before and Near-End Orthodontic Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Longitudinal Skeletal and Dental Changes in Untreated Children with Angle Class I and III Malocclusions: A Retrospective Cephalometric Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe camouflage treatment of skeletal class III malocclusion can include both premolar extraction and mandibular third molar extraction-based approaches. This study aimed to compare an all four second premolar extraction approach with a mandibular third molar extraction and temporary anchorage devices (TADs)-based approach for compensatory orthodontic treatment in mild to moderate skeletal class III malocclusion.
methods31 subjects (mean age = 19.65 ± 3.91 years, male = 12, female = 19) with skeletal class III malocclusion were included in this retrospective, observational study. Lateral cephalograms taken before and after treatment were used to perform measurements for 7 dental indicators, 9 skeletal indicators, and 5 soft tissue indicators. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the cephalometric measurements between groups.
resultsThe patients' profiles were improved after treatment, and molars reached a neutral occlusal relationship. Dental cephalometric measurements showed that mandibular incisor to mandibular plane angle (IMPA) (-7.73 ± 4.72°), lower incisor-Nasion-B point angle (L1-NB angle) (-8.36 ± 4.57°),and the lower incisor-Nasion-B point distance (L1-NB distance) (-2.02 ± 1.42 mm) all significantly reduced (P < 0.05) in the premolar extraction group, while the changes were non-significant in the mandibular third molar extraction group, and the between-group differences were significant. The angle between the long axis of upper incisors and that of lower incisors (U1-L1) increased significantly (7.76 ± 8.55°) in the premolar extraction group but decreased significantly in the mandibular third molar extraction group (-4.64 ± 5.96°) (P < 0.05). Skeletal cephalometric measurements showed that Sella-Nasion-B point angle (SNB), decreased (premolar extraction group: -1.43 ± 0.87°, mandibular third molar extraction group: -0.71 ± 0.73°), A point-Nasion-B point angle (ANB) increased (premolar extraction group: 1.01 ± 0.86°, mandibular third molar extraction group: 1.22 ± 0.93°) and Wits increased (premolar extraction group: 1.39 ± 0.93 mm, mandibular third molar extraction group: 1.00 ± 0.60 mm) significantly in both groups, P < 0.05; with a significantly larger decrease in SNB in the premolar extraction group (P < 0.05). Soft tissue measurement items showed lower lip eversion (LL-E) decreased (premolar extraction group: 1.77 ± 1.61 mm, mandibular third molar extraction group: 0.76 ± 1.14 mm) and Lip Difference increased (premolar extraction group: 2.30 ± 0.58 mm, mandibular third molar extraction group: (2.01 ± 0.52 mm) significantly in both groups (P < 0.05), with between-group differences non-significant. Analysis of co-variance accounting for the pre-treatment values as the covariate, showed significant effects of the treatment group for the parameters IMPA, L1-NB (mm), L1-NB (°), U1-L1(°), SNA, SNB, and Wits value.
conclusionFor mild and moderate skeletal class III malocclusion patients, both premolar extraction and mandibular third molar extraction with TAD-based approaches showed good clinical outcomes. The premolar extraction group showed greater SNB angle and compensatory lingual inclination of the lower incisors, along with significant reduction in OP-SN angle in the mandibular third molar extraction group, which contributed to the counterclockwise movement of the occlusal plane. Soft tissue changes mainly included improvements in lower lip protrusion with no significant differences noted between the two groups.
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.