ArticleBMC oral health2026
Efficacy of van Beek headgear activator in adolescents with UARS and hyperdivergent skeletal class II malocclusion: dentofacial morphology, airway, and growth.
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the comprehensive efficacy of van Beek Headgear Activator (VB) in treating adolescent Upper Airway Resistance Syndrome (UARS) patients with mouth breathing-induced high-angle skeletal Class II malocclusion.
methodsPatients were divided into a VB group and a control group. Lateral cephalometric radiographs taken at baseline (T0) and post-treatment (T1) were analyzed for craniofacial changes. Upper airway morphology and function were evaluated using the lateral cephalometric adenoid-to-nasopharyngeal length ratio (A/N), polysomnography results (PSG), and OSA-18 scores. Cone-beam computed tomography was used to assess transverse discrepancies (T-W: maxillary width - mandibular width - 5 mm). And the distribution of height and weight percentiles was compared between the two groups.
resultsA total of 48 subjects were enrolled in this study, with 30 in the VB group and 18 in the control group. In the VB group, SNA (mean decrease: 1.62°) and FH-NA (median decrease: 1.55°) showed significant pre-post reductions, and these changes were significantly different from those in the control group (all p < 0.001). Additionally, mandibular growth was moderately stimulated in the VB group, with Co-Go length showing a statistically significant median increase of 3.70 mm (p < 0.001). VB appliance therapy significantly improved transverse discrepancy, with a mean increase of 4.47 mm in the T-W value (p < 0.001). Over the observation period, both groups showed highly significant improvements in all airway outcomes and quality-of-life outcomes (A/N, AHI, minimum SpO₂, and OSA-18 scores; all p ≤ 0.01), with significantly greater improvements in the VB group across all parameters (all p < 0.001). A significant increase in height and weight percentiles was observed in the VB group (p < 0.001), whereas no changes were observed in the control group.
conclusionsIn a subset of children with conditional UARS who do not meet typical surgical indications, after the use of the VB functional appliance, improvements in sagittal jaw relationship and increases in transverse maxillary width were observed. Compared with the control group, the VB group showed certain improvements in airway-related parameters, sleep respiratory indices, and growth and development metrics, thereby providing preliminary evidence supporting non‑surgical intervention for this condition.
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.