ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Performance of Mandibular Advancement Devices When Opening the Mouth.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 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
purposeThe aim of this study is to evaluate the kinematic behavior of mandibular advancement devices (MAD) when opening the mouth, by analyzing the influence of the coupling system between the splits and the patient's morphology.
methodsSeven widely used MADs with different coupling mechanisms have been studied in 21 patients (8 females, 13 males). Using validated mathematical MAD models, one per tested device, the trajectories of the lower incisor and the posterior chin area (apophysis geni) were simulated for each device when opening the mouth.
resultsThe results show that all MADs maintain mandibular advancement with the mouth closed. However, significant variations occur when the mouth is opened. Devices with bars maintained mandibular advancement more effectively than those with fins, although performance depended on the bars' length and joints' position. In particular, shorter bars and more forward-positioned joints resulted in greater protrusion. Devices with fins consistently caused mandibular retrusion when opening the mouth.
conclusionIt is not possible to reach general conclusions about the effectiveness of MADs by analyzing any device. Rather, the results obtained are for a specific MAD and may be different for another MAD model. The study also found that mandibular movement patterns differed according to patients' facial biotypes. The results suggest that both the coupling system and patients' morphology must be considered in the design of MADs to maintain effective mandibular advancement during mouth opening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42271074What 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.