ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2026
Facial profile attractiveness in orthodontically treated Class III malocclusion patients: a comparison of extraction and non-extraction protocols.
Article in Dental press 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe treatment of Class III malocclusion has an important impact on facial and smile esthetics.
objectiveTo compare the facial profile attractiveness (FPA) of Class III malocclusion patients treated with and without premolar extractions. MATERIAL AND
methodsA retrospective sample of 39 Class III malocclusion patients was divided into two groups: Non-extraction group, composed of 20 patients (8 males, 12 females; mean age: 13.7 years); and the Extraction group, comprising 19 patients (9 males, 10 females; mean age: 15.0 years). Both groups were treated with orthodontic fixed appliances. Facial profile silhouettes were created from the pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalometric radiographs. The silhouettes were evaluated by 30 laypeople (20 males, 10 females; mean age: 32.2 years) and 29 orthodontists (13 males, 16 females; mean age: 48 years). The evaluators rated FPA using a scale ranging from 1 (least attractive) to 10 (most attractive). Intergroup comparisons of FPA between treatment protocols and evaluators were performed using Mann-Whitney tests. For intragroup comparisons of pre- and posttreatment stages, Wilcoxon tests were performed.
resultsThe extraction group was statistically more attractive in the pretreatment stage, when compared to the non-extraction group. Both groups showed no significant differences in the intragroup comparisons of pre- and posttreatment stages. Laypeople rated FPA significantly lower than orthodontists at both stages.
conclusionClass III malocclusion patients treated with and without extractions presented similar FPA at the posttreatment stage. No differences were observed for the FPA in the intragroup comparisons of pre- and posttreatment stages. Orthodontists were significantly less critical than laypeople.
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.