ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2025
Evaluation of the PowerScope Appliance Effects on the Dentoskeletal and Soft Tissue for the Treatment of Class II Malocclusions.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 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 the PowerScope Appliance Effects on the Dentoskeletal and Soft Tissue for the Treatment of Class II Malocclusions.Clinical and experimental dental research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo evaluate and compare the dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects of the PowerScope and Twin Block appliances for treating Class II malocclusions. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed pre- (T0) and posttreatment (T1) cephalograms of 14 patients treated with PowerScope (Group A) and 17 patients treated with Twin Block (Group B). Thirty-three cephalometric variables were assessed. Statistical analysis included paired and independent t-tests or their non-parametric equivalents.
resultsBoth groups showed significant improvements in soft tissue profiles. The Twin Block group demonstrated a significantly greater increase in SNB angle (p = 0.048) and more pronounced changes in UL-SnPog' and LL-SnPog' posttreatment (p = 0.021 for both). The PowerScope group exhibited significantly greater increases in IMPA and Md-NB (p = 0.029 and p < 0.001, respectively) and a significantly shorter treatment duration (p < 0.0001).
conclusionBoth appliances effectively treat Class II malocclusion and improve lip positioning. The Twin Block appliance is associated with greater mandibular skeletal advancement, while the PowerScope appliance leads to greater lower incisor protrusion and a shorter treatment time.
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.