Observational studyScientific reports2026
Comparison between traditional and digital anterior repositioning splints on the upper airway in skeletal class II malocclusion with TMJ degenerative disease.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This retrospective observational study compared the effects of traditional Anterior Repositioning Splint (ARS) and digital ARS on the upper airway of patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion and temporomandibular joint degenerative joint disease. A total of 110 patients were included and divided into two groups: the traditional ARS group (55 cases) and the digital ARS group (55 cases). Dolphin Image 11.95 software was used to measure the CBCT of the temporomandibular joint before and after treatment, and upper airway-related indicators were analyzed. Additionally, patient satisfaction and chairside adjustment time were assessed. The results showed that in the traditional group, the oropharyngeal volume and the total oronasopharyngeal volume significantly increased after treatment (P < 0.05), while there was no statistical difference in the nasopharyngeal volume and the minimum oropharyngeal cross-sectional area. In the digital group, the nasopharyngeal volume significantly increased after treatment (P < 0.05), and the other three indicators increased more significantly (P < 0.01). Intergroup comparisons of changes in upper airway indicators, only the minimum cross-sectional area, the digital group showed a significantly greater improvement than the traditional group (95%CI: 2.15-62.59; P = 0.023). There was no difference in the base tooth discomfort score between the two groups, but there were statistical differences in the degree of speech impact, foreign body sensation, appearance impact, opposing tooth discomfort, total satisfaction score, and chairside adjustment time (P < 0.05). The conclusion is that the digital anterior repositioning anatomical splint is superior to the traditional splint in terms of improvement effects on the upper airway, efficiency of clinical operations and patient satisfaction. Clinical trial number: KS20241029001.
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.