ArticleProgress in orthodontics2025
A comparative three-dimensional analysis of skeletal and dental changes induced by Herbst and PowerScope appliances in Class II malocclusion treatment: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Progress in orthodontics, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSkeletal Class II malocclusion is commonly treated using mandibular advancement appliances during growth. Evaluating the comparative effectiveness of different appliances can help optimize treatment outcomes.
objectivesThis study aimed to compare dental and skeletal outcomes of Class II malocclusion treatment using Herbst and PowerScope appliances in conjunction with fixed orthodontic therapy.
methodsThis retrospective comparative study included 46 consecutively treated patients in two university clinics: 26 with PowerScope and 20 with Herbst MiniScope. CBCT scans were obtained before and after treatment. Skeletal and dental changes were analyzed using maxillary and mandibular voxel-based regional superimpositions and cranial base registrations, aided by AI-based landmark detection. Measurement bias was minimized through the use of a calibrated, blinded examiner. No patients were excluded from the analysis. Due to the study's retrospective nature, no prospective registration was performed; the institutional review board granted ethical approval.
resultsThe Herbst group showed greater anterior displacement at B-point and Pogonion than PowerScope (2.4 mm and 2.6 mm, respectively). Both groups exhibited improved maxillomandibular relationships, with PowerScope's SNA angle reduced and Herbst's SNB increased. Vertical skeletal changes were observed at points A, B, and Pog in both groups. Herbst also resulted in less lower incisor proclination and more pronounced distal movement of upper incisors.
conclusionBoth appliances effectively corrected Class II malocclusion. Herbst promoted more pronounced skeletal advancement, while PowerScope induced greater dental compensation. These findings may be generalizable to similarly aged Class II patients in CVM stages 3-4.
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.