ArticleJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2026
Dentofacial effects of lingual versus labial fixed appliances in adults treated with four-premolar extractions and skeletal anchorage-supported mechanics : A retrospective comparative cephalometric study.
Article in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 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
purposeEvidence comparing the dentofacial effects of lingual and labial fixed appliances in adults treated with four-premolar extractions is limited, particularly when skeletal anchorage is considered. This study compared posttreatment incisor inclination, vertical pattern, and lip position between the two appliance types by analyzing lateral cephalograms.
methodsThis retrospective comparative study included 118 adults treated in one private practice (59 with lingual, 59 with labial fixed appliances). Primary outcomes were posttreatment maxillary incisor to sella-nasion angle (U1-SN) and mandibular incisor to mandibular plane angle (IMPA). Secondary outcomes were sella-nasion to gonion-gnathion angle (SN-GoGn), upper lip to esthetic line distance (UL-E), and lower lip to esthetic line distance (LL-E). Outcomes were compared using analysis of covariance adjusted for the pretreatment value, Angle classification, crowding, and the number of temporary anchorage devices (TADs). Sensitivity models additionally adjusted for age, sex, and treatment duration.
resultsAdjusted posttreatment U1-SN was lower in the lingual group than in the labial group (adjusted difference, -4.40°; 95% confidence interval [CI] -6.46 to -2.35; P < 0.001). No significant between-group differences were found for IMPA (0.05°; P = 0.957), SN-GoGn (0.39°; P = 0.336), UL‑E (-0.31 mm; P = 0.336), or LL‑E (-0.13 mm; P = 0.759). Sensitivity analyses supported the same pattern.
conclusionIn adults treated with four-premolar extractions, lingual appliances were associated with greater maxillary incisor retroclination than labial appliances, whereas mandibular incisor inclination, vertical pattern, and lip position were similar. Appliance selection should therefore consider maxillary torque control, especially when lingual treatment is chosen for esthetic reasons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42616075What 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.