Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2025
Comparison between two bone anchored force systems for correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion in growing patients: a randomized controlled clinical trial, part 1: short-term skeletal changes.
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.
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.
- Evaluation of clear aligner treatment for early permanent dentition Angle Class II Division 1 malocclusion in adolescents.Translational pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the treatment effects of pushing or pulling force mechanics applied to bimaxillary miniplates with those of deferred treatment control patients to evaluate mandibular skeletal growth changes in growing patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion due to mandibular deficiency. Materials and Methods: Thirty-nine patients (24 males, 15 females; mean age = 11.59 ± 0.56 years) were equally and randomly assigned to one of three groups: Group A, skeletally anchored fixed-functional appliance (pushing mechanics); Group B, skeletally anchored Class II spring (pulling mechanics); and Group C, deferred treatment skeletal Class II control patients. Pretreatment and posttreatment cone-beam computed tomography scans were used for assessment of measurements (time interval: 11.52 ± 0.32, 11.53 ± 0.31, and 9.63 ± 0.22 months for groups A, B, and C, respectively). Results: Relative to the control group, both intervention groups showed significant increases in effective mandibular length (Co-Gn), with mean differences of 5.08 ± 2.25 mm in Group A, and 3.83 ± 2.79 mm in Group B. A significant improvement in the sagittal relationship was observed in both groups, with reductions in ANB angle by 4.31° in Group A, and 5.5° in Group B. The mandibular plane angle was increased significantly in Group B by 1.83 ± 0.72°. Conclusion: Mandibular growth was enhanced using either pushing or pulling skeletally anchored force mechanics. The use of pulling force mechanics, specifically, was associated with increases in lower facial height.
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.