ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparison of early Class II light elastics and PowerScope 2 in mild Class II Division 2 malocclusion: a retrospective clinical 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective was to compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of early Class II light elastics and PowerScope appliance used with self-ligating brackets in Class II Division 2 patients.
methodsThirty-one Class II Division 2 patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 (N = 16, mean age:15.06 ± 1.77 years) was treated with the Damon 3MX self-ligating system and early Class II light elastics. Group 2 (N = 15, mean age:15.87 ± 1.30 years) received Empower self-ligating brackets combined with PowerScope fixed functional appliance (FFA). Lateral cephalograms were taken before treatment (T0) and after achieving a Class I molar relationship (T1). Surveys assessing comfort and pain were analyzed at the beginning and after six months.
resultsGroup 2 exhibited a significantly greater change in SNB° compared to Group 1, while increases in vertical skeletal measurements were greater in Group 1 (p < 0.05). Both groups exhibited maxillary and mandibular incisor protrusion with no significant difference. Lower molar extrusion (L6-H) was greater in Group 1 (2.77 ± 2.87 vs1.14 ± 1.77 mm, p = 0.038), whereas only Group 2 showed significant lower incisor intrusion (p = 0.002). Patients in the early elastic group generally reported better experiences with comfort-related situations. Pain levels at the 4th and 24th hours were significantly higher in Group 2 (p < 0.05).
conclusionEarly light elastics and FFA were effective in normalizing Class II division 2 and corrected the molar relationship at the same time. Both treatment modalities demonstrated comparable dentoalveolar effects, except for the extrusion of lower molars and the intrusion of lower incisors. Patient comfort was better in the elastic group than in the FFA group.
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.