Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41015414›Full record

Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2025

Early versus late intermaxillary elastics in patients with Class II malocclusion: a randomized clinical trial.

Maha Sabry Sayed, Mais Medhat Sadek, Noha Hussein Abbas

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Angle orthodontist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Maha Sabry Sayed
Mais Medhat Sadek
Noha Hussein Abbas

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To compare efficacy and treatment duration of early versus late Class II elastics in patients with Class II malocclusion. Material and Methods: Forty patients were randomized into two groups based on the timing of elastics use: early and late. In the early group, light short elastics were used from the day of placement of fixed preadjusted edgewise appliances. In the late group, elastics were inserted once 0.016 × 0.022-inch stainless steel archwires were in place. Lateral cephalograms and standardized smile photographs were taken before treatment and after achieving a Class I buccal segment relationship. Treatment duration, dental, skeletal, and soft tissue measurements were then compared between the two groups. Results: Maxillary central incisors were retroclined relative to the SN plane (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.75°-11.99° and 3.96°-9.18° in the early and late groups, respectively) with clockwise rotation of the occlusal plane (95% CI: 3.75°-11.99° and 3.96°-9.18° in the early and late groups, respectively). Treatment duration to level and align and reach Class I buccal occlusion was significantly less in the early group (95% CI: 4.74-10.8 months). Comparison between groups revealed no significant differences for all measurements except MP/SN and PP/SN angles (P < .05). Conclusions: Class II elastics were equally effective and more efficient in the early group with significantly less time needed to level and align and reach Class I buccal occlusion compared to the late group.

Indexed as

Malocclusion, Angle Class IIAdolescentCephalometryChildFemaleHumansMaleOrthodontic Appliance DesignTime FactorsTooth Movement TechniquesTreatment OutcomeClass II malocclusionEarly treatmentElasticsGingival display

Identifiers

PMID41015414
PMCPMC12544386

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.