ArticleKorean journal of orthodontics2026
Efficacy of clear functional orthodontic appliances versus traditional functional appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Korean journal of orthodontics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis of the cephalometric and dental repositioning outcomes in patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion treated with either traditional functional appliances or clear aligners with mandibular advancement. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using four major electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Two independent reviewers selected studies based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study design (PICOS) framework. Eligible studies were screened according to the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and relevant data were extracted. Results: After a multi-stage screening and selection process, five studies were included. Skeletal and dental parameters were analyzed to compare the treatment outcomes. For the SNA angle, the standardized mean difference (SMD) was 0.54 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.28 to 1.36; Conclusions: Treatment outcomes showed no clinically significant differences between clear aligners with mandibular advancement and traditional functional appliances. This meta-analysis suggests that clear aligners with mandibular advancement may serve as alternatives for the treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion, although high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these preliminary findings.
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.