ArticleBMC oral health2026
Dentofacial changes following four premolar extraction camouflage treatment in Class III malocclusions: a retrospective cohort study with gender-based evaluation.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prediction of Orthodontic Extraction Decisions Using Machine Learning Algorithms: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAdult skeletal Class III malocclusions present a significant clinical challenge, particularly in borderline cases where camouflage treatment is preferred over surgical intervention. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate dentofacial changes and gender differences after camouflage treatment involving four premolar extractions in adult patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 50 adult patients (25 females; mean age: 16.34 ± 1.11 years, and 25 males; mean age: 17.61 ± 1.92 years) with skeletal Class III malocclusion (ANB < 0°) treated with the extraction of both maxillary and mandibular first premolars. These cases were diagnosed to be in the borderline surgical-orthodontic range but refused surgical treatments. Pre-treatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1) lateral cephalometric radiographs and plaster dental casts were analyzed. Skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue measurements were obtained, and treatment quality was assessed using the Peer Assessment Rating index. Intragroup comparisons were performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and intergroup comparisons were conducted with the Mann-Whitney U test (P < 0.05).
resultsAt T0, most variables were comparable between genders; however, males exhibited significantly greater U1-Ls, L1-Li, Sn-Stm, Stm-Me', and Go-Me values (P < 0.05). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in PAR scores and favorable dentoalveolar and soft-tissue changes (P < 0.05). Females exhibited additional significant skeletal and profile changes (SNB°, ANB°, SN/GoGn°, Pg-Pg', CmSnLs°), whereas males showed significant upper lip retrusion (Ls-S). Intergroup comparisons revealed greater mandibular incisor retrusion (L1⊥NB) in males than in females (P < 0.05).
conclusionsFour-premolar extraction camouflage treatment in Class III malocclusions produced significant dentoalveolar and soft-tissue improvements in both genders. However, females demonstrated more pronounced skeletal and profile-related changes, whereas males exhibited a greater degree of mandibular incisor retrusion, indicating a more pronounced dentoalveolar compensation pattern. These findings suggest that gender-specific differences should be considered during treatment planning to optimize esthetic and functional outcomes.
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.