ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparative Evaluation of the Effects of Miniscrew and Miniplate Skeletal Anchorage in the Orthopedic Treatment of Growing Class III Malocclusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesSkeletal Class III malocclusion in growing patients presents therapeutic challenges. While traditional tooth-anchored facemask (FM) therapy is widely used, it may induce undesired dental effects. Bone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP), using either miniscrews (MSs) or miniplates (MPs), has been proposed to enhance skeletal outcomes and minimize dental compensation. The objective is to compare the efficacy of MS and MP as skeletal anchorage in the orthopedic treatment of the Class III growing patients.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. Five databases and manual searches were conducted without restrictions. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized and non-randomized controlled trials assessing cephalometric outcomes in growing patients treated with MS or MP. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools, and evidence certainty was evaluated using GRADE. A meta-analysis was performed, collecting all the statistically significant results that emerged in the 11 articles between skeletal anchorage and controls, comparing the values of the MP group with the MS group.
resultsEleven studies (seven MP, four MS) met the inclusion criteria. Both MS and MP groups showed significant maxillary advancement and improved maxillo-mandibular relationships compared to controls. Regarding vertical values, studies have reported contrasting outcomes. Soft tissue improvements were consistent in both MS and MP devices. Statistical analysis has highlighted how MP devices demonstrated more pronounced skeletal effects, while MS systems were associated with more dental effects.
conclusionsMP may be preferable when the aim is to maximize skeletal correction with fewer dental side effects, while MS can be considered in cases favoring less invasive approaches; long-term follow-up and high-quality clinical studies are needed to confirm these clinical assessments.
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.