Trial reportScientific reports2025
Soft tissue effects of aesthetic and conventional twin block appliances in the treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05418413 (Dentoskeletal Changes Resulting From Treatment of Skeletal Class II With an Esthetic Twin Block Appliance.), which is not on this 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.
Dentoskeletal Changes Resulting From Treatment of Skeletal Class II With an Esthetic Twin Block Appliance.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Enhancement of facial profile represents one of the primary objectives of orthodontic treatment, particularly in the light of the growing aesthetic concerns among patients. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to evaluate and compare the effects of aesthetic (ATB) and conventional (CTB) Twin Block appliances on the facial soft tissues of patients with skeletal Class II Division 1 malocclusion. 52 pubertal patients were randomly assigned to two groups: 26 received ATB, and 26 received CTB. Pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs were used to assess 16 soft tissue variables. The data were analyzed via paired and independent t tests, with the significance level set at p < 0.05. Both ATB and CTB significantly improved facial convexity and mentolabial angles, with no significant difference between the groups (p < 0.05). The CTB group presented significant upper and lower lip retraction relative to the Ricketts' E-line, whereas the ATB group did not, with no significant difference between the groups (p < 0.05). Holdaway analysis indicated significant soft tissue improvement in both groups. Notably, the ATB group demonstrated greater advancement in the lower lip sulcus (p = 0.02) and less nasal prominence (p = 0.03) than did the CTB group. No serious harm was reported. Functional treatment with both appliances caused favorable soft tissue changes. However, The ATB appliance demonstrated more advantageous outcomes in enhancing the concavity of the lower labial sulcus.Trial Registration: NCT05418413 (14/06/2022).
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.