ArticleOrthodontics & craniofacial research2026
Mandibular Response in Class II Division 1 Growing Subjects: Clear Aligners vs. Rapid Maxillary Expansion Therapy. A Controlled Pilot Study.
Article in Orthodontics & craniofacial research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe present study aimed to evaluate the skeletal and dental changes in two different groups of mixed dentition Class II division 1 patients treated with Clear Aligners and with Rapid Maxillary Expansion and to assess the post-treatment mandibular response in comparison with an untreated control group. MATERIALS AND
method33 subjects were recruited according to the following inclusion criteria: Caucasian ancestry, early mixed dentition with fully-erupted first permanent molars, bilateral Class II division 1, posterior transverse interarch discrepancy < 5 mm, CSV1-2, no previous orthodontic treatment/congenitally missing or extracted teeth/craniofacial syndromes. The Aligner Group (AG = 13, 6 males, 7 females, 9.2 ± 0.8 years) was treated with Clear Aligners following a standardized sequential expansion protocol "molars move first" without extractions and other auxiliaries than attachments; the RME group (RG = 10 patients, 5 males, 5 females, 9.6 ± 0.7 years) was treated with RME banded on second primary molars; the Control Group (CG = 10, 6 males, 4 females, 9.6 ± 0.9 years) was followed up for 1 year without treatment. Panoramic radiographs and lateral cephalograms were collected pre-treatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1) (T1-T0 = 15.7 ± 1.3 months). The Kruskal-Wallis one-way test was used for the analysis of variance by ranks at T0 (baseline) and for the changes observed between T0 and T1 (p < 0.10).
resultsOn the sagittal plane, no significant post-treatment differences in mandibular response were found between the three analysed groups. On the vertical plane, the CA group showed a statistically significant reduction of SN-GoMe when compared to the CG (p = 0.023) and to the RG (p = 0.067).
conclusionsClear Aligners and RME did not influence the sagittal skeletal relationship in prepubertal Class II division 1 patients treated during early mixed dentition, compared to the untreated control group. On the vertical plane, patients treated with Clear Aligners showed a statistically significant reduction of SN-GoMe. CLINICAL STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: Protocol Number E00176-2025.
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.