Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40372546›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2025

Three-dimensional pharyngeal airway and hyoid bone changes in skeletal class I malocclusion treated with extraction and non-extraction protocols: a comparative study of fixed orthodontic appliance and clear aligners.

Majedh Abdo Ali Al-Somairi, Yuwen Yan, Maged S Alhammadi, Naseem Ali Al-Worafi, Enas Senan Alyafrusee, Bushra Sufyan Almaqrami, Hasan M Sharhan, Barakat Al-Tayar, Bowen Zheng, Yi Liu

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Majedh Abdo Ali Al-SomairiDepartment of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang Clinical Medical Research Center of Orthodontic Disease, Nanjing North Street 117#, He-Ping District Shenyang, Shenyang, 110002, P.R. China.
Yuwen YanDepartment of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang Clinical Medical Research Center of Orthodontic Disease, Nanjing North Street 117#, He-Ping District Shenyang, Shenyang, 110002, P.R. China.
Maged S AlhammadiOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
Naseem Ali Al-WorafiDepartment of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang Clinical Medical Research Center of Orthodontic Disease, Nanjing North Street 117#, He-Ping District Shenyang, Shenyang, 110002, P.R. China.
Enas Senan AlyafruseeDepartment of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang Clinical Medical Research Center of Orthodontic Disease, Nanjing North Street 117#, He-Ping District Shenyang, Shenyang, 110002, P.R. China.
Bushra Sufyan AlmaqramiDepartment of Orthodontics, Ningbo Dental Hospital, Ningbo, Zhejiang, 315032, China.
Hasan M SharhanDepartment of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang Clinical Medical Research Center of Orthodontic Disease, Nanjing North Street 117#, He-Ping District Shenyang, Shenyang, 110002, P.R. China.
Barakat Al-TayarDepartment of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang Clinical Medical Research Center of Orthodontic Disease, Nanjing North Street 117#, He-Ping District Shenyang, Shenyang, 110002, P.R. China.
Bowen ZhengDepartment of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang Clinical Medical Research Center of Orthodontic Disease, Nanjing North Street 117#, He-Ping District Shenyang, Shenyang, 110002, P.R. China. bwzheng@cmu.edu.cn.
Yi LiuDepartment of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang Clinical Medical Research Center of Orthodontic Disease, Nanjing North Street 117#, He-Ping District Shenyang, Shenyang, 110002, P.R. China. liuyi@cmu.edu.cn.

Funding

This work was supported by Basic Scientific Research Project of Education Department of Liaoning Province (LJKMZ20221190)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to provide a comprehensive three-dimensional (3D) evaluation of fixed appliances (FAs) and clear aligners (CAs) on pharyngeal airway (PA) dimensions and hyoid bone (HB) positioning in skeletal Class I malocclusion patients treated with extraction and non-extraction protocols, comparing the effects within each protocol. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective study involved 120 adult patients divided into extraction and non-extraction groups, each further subdivided equally into those treated with FAs and CAs. PA segmentation and measurements were conducted with Dolphin 11.8 (Dolphin Imaging and Management Solutions, Chatsworth, CA). The PA was analyzed in the nasopharyngeal (NP), oropharyngeal (OP), and hypopharyngeal (HP), total pharyngeal (TP) airway, while HB parameters were measured using InVivo 6.0.3 (Anatomage, San Jose, CA). Descriptive and analytical statistics were performed, with a significance level set at P < 0.05.

resultsNone of the evaluated parameters showed a significant difference in the baseline, indicating almost comparable groups. Inter-group comparisons showed that within the non-extraction group, FAs caused greater decreases in OP sagittal width and HP lateral width and more significant increases in vertical hyoid position (H-FH) compared to CAs (P < 0.05). In the extraction group, FAs resulted in greater decreases in OP lateral width and volume, HP volume, and more significant H-FH increases than CAs (P < 0.05).

conclusionFixed appliances caused greater reductions in oropharyngeal and hypopharyngeal dimensions and more significant changes in hyoid bone position compared to clear aligners, particularly in extraction cases. Clinicians should consider these effects when selecting treatment modalities, especially for patients with airway concerns. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Fixed appliances significantly impact pharyngeal airway dimensions and hyoid bone positioning, while clear aligners have milder effects, emphasizing the need for careful treatment planning.

Indexed as

Hyoid BoneImaging, Three-DimensionalMalocclusion, Angle Class IOrthodontic Appliances, FixedPharynxTooth ExtractionAdultFemaleHumansMaleOrthodontic Appliance DesignRetrospective StudiesClass I malocclusionClear alignersExtractionFixed appliancesHyoid boneNon-extractionPharyngeal airway

Identifiers

PMID40372546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.