ReviewJournal of orthodontic science2025
Bone-anchored maxillary protraction versus conventional orthopedic treatment for Class III malocclusion in children under 12 years: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of orthodontic science, 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.
- RAMPA Therapy: Effects on Craniofacial Growth Assessed by Coben Analysis and Statistical Evaluation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Class III malocclusion in mixed dentition often involves maxillary retrusion. Conventional orthopedic treatments, such as facemask or chin cup therapy, aim to redirect craniofacial growth but frequently cause dentoalveolar compensation and unfavorable vertical changes. Bone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP) provides skeletal traction to enhance maxillary advancement while limiting vertical side effects. This review compares the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft-tissue outcomes of BAMP versus conventional orthopedic treatment or natural growth in children under 12 years. The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251042103). A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to April 2025 following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Studies evaluating BAMP against conventional Class III therapies or untreated controls in children younger than 12 years were included. Four quantitative and four qualitative studies were synthesized. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I. Across 116 patients in the quantitative studies, BAMP consistently improved SNA (+1.9° to +6.17°) and ANB (+1.4° to +6.83°), enhanced Wits appraisal, and demonstrated minimal increases in SN-MP angles, indicating superior vertical control. Overjet gains (+5.97 mm) and stable upper incisor inclination suggested reduced dental compensation. Soft-tissue improvements included enhanced midface projection. The qualitative studies supported these trends. Current evidence indicates that BAMP achieves greater skeletal correction and vertical control with fewer dentoalveolar side effects compared with conventional Class III therapies or observation. Further long-term studies are required.
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.