Trial reportMedicine2025
Comparative investigation of the effects of conventional and skeletal anchorage pendulum appliances on dentofacial structures.
Trial report in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundMaxillary molar distalization is a common treatment approach for Class II malocclusions. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and side effects of conventional pendulum appliances versus single and double miniscrew-supported pendulum appliances on skeletal and dentoalveolar structures.
methodsThirty patients with skeletal Class I and dental Class II malocclusion were randomly allocated to 3 equal groups (n = 10 each): conventional pendulum appliance (Group 1), single miniscrew-supported pendulum (Group 2), and double miniscrew-supported pendulum (Group 3). Mean ages were 13.6 ± 1.2, 14.5 ± 1.1, and 14.3 ± 1.2 years, respectively. Treatment continued until bilateral Class I molar relationships were achieved. Pre- and post-distalization lateral cephalometric radiographs were analyzed for skeletal and dental changes.
resultsThe mean distalization period was significantly shorter in Group 3 (6.4 ± 0.5 months) compared to Group 2 (7.3 ± 0.5 months) and Group 1 (8.0 ± 0.7 months) (P < .05). All groups exhibited distal molar tipping with upper first molar long-axis angle to maxillary horizontal reference plane (°) increases of 5.2 ± 0.9°, 6.8 ± 1.1°, and 7.4 ± 1.0° in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Incisor protrusion occurred in Groups 1 and 2 (upper central incisor tip to maxillary vertical reference plane (mm) increase: 2.2 ± 0.5 mm and 1.5 ± 0.4 mm), while Group 3 demonstrated incisor retrusion (-0.8 ± 0.3 mm) (P < .01). Group 3 showed significantly less increase in overjet (0.4 ± 0.2 mm) compared to Groups 1 (2.5 ± 0.6 mm) and 2 (1.7 ± 0.5 mm) (P < .01).
conclusionThe double miniscrew-supported pendulum appliance demonstrated superior clinical efficiency with reduced treatment duration and minimal anchorage loss. This approach provided better control of incisor position during maxillary molar distalization compared to conventional and single miniscrew designs.
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.