ArticleBMC oral health2026
Evaluation of the dental and skeletal effects of mandibular advancement by herbst appliance combined with miniscrews: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSkeletal Class II malocclusion with mandibular retrognathia is a common, condition that can compromise oral function and facial aesthetics. The Herbst appliance is an effective fixed functional appliance; however, it may result in mesial movement of mandibular molars and proclination of mandibular incisors. Miniscrews may help mitigate these side effects. This study aimed to compare the dental and skeletal effects of conventional Herbst appliances versus Herbst appliances combined with miniscrews in adolescent patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion and mandibular retrognathia.
methodsThis retrospective study included 37 adolescent patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion. The control group (n = 20, 12.58 ± 1.09 years, 10 males, 10 females) was treated with conventional Herbst appliances, whereas the experimental group (n = 17, 12.52 ± 0.73 years, 8 males, 9 females) received Herbst appliances combined with miniscrews implanted in the mandibular external oblique ridges. CBCT data were obtained before (T1) and after (T2) treatment, with cephalometric variables measured using Dolphin Imaging software.
resultsAfter treatment, both groups showed increased lower incisor proclination, increased mandibular growth and reduced overjet. The experimental group had significantly less increase in IMPA, greater increases in SNB, Co-Go, Co-Gn, and Pog-SP, and a greater decrease in ANB compared to the control group.
conclusionsBoth control and experimental groups stimulate mandibular growth, but miniscrews provided better anchorage control, resulting in less increase in IMPA, and achieve correction through greater skeletal changes. These results offer preliminary insights for the clinical management of skeletal Class II malocclusion, though further validation through well-designed randomized controlled trials is warranted.
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.