Trial reportBMC oral health2026
The effect of mandibular advancement with clear aligners compared with activator therapy on maxillary and mandibular volumes: a randomized controlled trial using CBCT.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07056829 (The Effect of Mandibular Advancement With Clear Aligners on Maxillary and Mandibular Volumes), 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.
The Effect of Mandibular Advancement With Clear Aligners on Maxillary and Mandibular Volumes: A Randomized Controlled Trial Using CBCT
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
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of the Mandibular Advancement Appliance (MAA) system on mandibular and maxillary volumes in growing individuals using three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and to compare the results with those obtained using a conventional functional appliance (Activator) and a control group.
methodsThis single-center, randomized, controlled study included 55 individuals with skeletal Class II malocclusion at cervical vertebral maturation stages 2 or 3. The MAA and Activator groups each comprised 20 participants, while the control group included 15 participants. Volumetric analyses were performed using CBCT data and Mimics 15.0® software. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 21.
resultsAn increase in mandibular and maxillary volumes was observed in both the MAA and Activator groups during the treatment period. However, these increases were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). No significant differences were found between the treatment groups and the control group.
conclusionsWithin the scope of this short-term treatment protocol, the MAA and Activator systems demonstrated similar effects on maxillary and mandibular volumes. Considering the esthetic and comfort-related advantages of the MAA, this system may be an effective alternative for the treatment of Class II malocclusion.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT07056829 (registered June 29, 2025; retrospectively registered).
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.