ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparison of total treatment duration with hybrid pendulum and buccal interradicular miniscrew supported maxillary molar distalization mechanics: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bone-Screw-Force Interactions in Palatal Orthodontic Mini-Implants: A Scoping Review and Decision Framework for Primary Stability and Biomechanically Driven Site Selection.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Efficiency and biomechanics of a novel CAD/CAM individual distalizer versus cervical headgear: a preliminary prospective cohort study and exploratory finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the total duration of Class II malocclusion treatment with hybrid pendulum vs. buccal interradicular miniscrew supported distalization mechanics followed by fixed appliances. Molar distalization duration and end-of-the-treatment changes were also compared. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe sample of this retrospective cohort study consisted of clinical records, pre-treatment (T1) and post-treatment (T2) dental models, and panoramic and lateral cephalometric radiographs of 80 skeletal Class I patients with bilateral Class II molar relation. Molar distalization was achieved with a hybrid pendulum in Group P (15 males, 25 females; mean age: 15.19 ± 0.32 years) and with buccal interradicular miniscrew-supported compressed sentalloy coil springs in Group B (15 males, 25 females; initial mean age: 15.65 ± 0.32 years). Following molar distalization, all patients in both groups received comprehensive fixed orthodontic treatment. Molar distalization and total treatment durations and changes in Peer Assessment Rating scores and 14 cephalometric measurements were evaluated.
resultsStatistically significant molar distalization and distal tipping, mandibular incisor protrusion, and PAR reduction were achieved in both groups, with no difference between groups. There were no significant differences between groups for total treatment (24.58 ± 5.19 months in Group B and 24.81 ± 5.33 months in Group P) and molar distalization durations (7.01 ± 2.17 months in Group B and 7.03 ± 1.42 months in Group P) (p > 0.0167).
conclusionsThe total length of orthodontic treatment for Class II malocclusion which involved molar distalization by miniscrew supported appliances was not affected by whether the appliance was located palatally or buccally.
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.