ArticleJournal of orthodontic science2026
Comparative evaluation of skeletally anchored modified intermaxillary versus intramaxillary force systems for maxillary molar distalization: A randomized clinical trial.
Article in Journal of orthodontic science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Age-Related Variations in Lower Facial Soft-Tissue Thickness: A Retrospective Cephalometric Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Comparative Dentoskeletal Effects of Two Fixed Systems in Treating Class II Malocclusion: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDistalization in orthodontics is one of the conservative modalities for gaining space in orthodontics. The skeletally anchored distalizers avoid the adverse effects of the dentally anchored ones.
objectiveThe current study aimed to evaluate the effects of the skeletally anchored modified Leaf Expander, (Leaf Expander PATIENTS AND
methodsThirty orthodontic patients, aged 15 to 18, were involved in the present study. Group I comprised 15 patients who were treated with the skeletally anchored modified Leaf expander (MLE as a distalizer. Group ΙΙ involved 15 patients who were treated by the skeletally anchored modified Carriere Motion Appliance (CMA. Amount of molar distalization, molar tipping, Overjet, ANB (angle formed between A point, Nasion and B point), and vertical skeletal changes (FH-MP) (angle formed between the Frankfort plane and the mandibular plane), arch length, and transverse dimensions have been assessed by using digital models. All data were analyzed using SPSS version 20.0 (IBM Corp., USA). Normality was verified by the Shapiro-Wilk test.
resultsUpper first molar distalization (U6-VRL) (distance from mesiobuccal cusp of upper first molar to vertical reference line from S point; measures distal movement.) showed a highly significant difference (
conclusionThe skeletally anchored modified Leaf expander (MLE) as a distalizer produces a greater amount of maxillary molar distalization and less molar tipping than that produced by the skeletally anchored modified Carriere Motion Appliance (CMA).
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.