ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2025
Clinical Outcomes of Skeletal Anchorage Versus Conventional Anchorage in the Class III Orthopaedic Treatment in Growing Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison Between Skeletally-Anchored and Conventional Maxillary Protraction in Growing Class ΙΙΙ Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Pooled it
- Mandibular Molar Distalization Using Interradicular Microimplants and Indirect Anchorage: A Case Report.Cureus · 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
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of skeletal anchorage, compared to conventional anchorage, in the treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion in growing patients. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A specific search strategy was developed for PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane searching for randomized controlled trials and non-randomized clinical trials. Eleven interventions were assessed, three employing conventional anchorage (group A) and eight skeletal anchorage (group B). Nine pre-treatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1) mean cephalometric outcomes were statistically polled (SNA, SNB, ANB, Wits, Overjet, Overbite, SNMP, IMPA, U1PP). In total, 196 studies were identified, 17 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis. In the skeletal anchorage group, a greater increase in both ANB (+2.511°) and Wits (+4.691 mm) were observed and the increase in SNMP resulted well-controlled (+0.758°). The conventional anchorage group showed higher dentoalveolar side effects: increase in U1PP (+5.624°), decrease in IMPA (-0.866°) and increase in overjet (+5.255 mm). Treatments exploiting skeletal anchorage determined a better correction of skeletal Class III, thanks to a combination of greater advancement of the maxilla and more enhanced retrusion of the mandible. In all treatment protocols exploiting dental anchorage, the increase in the inclination of the central incisor resulted significantly greater. Further longitudinal studies are required to evaluate the long-term effects of skeletal anchorage in growing patients.
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.