ArticleBMC oral health2026
Root resorption in Class II malocclusion treatment with various methods.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo determine the apical root resorption (ARR) associated with three different orthodontic treatment methods for Class II malocclusion.
methodsARR of the upper and lower incisors was evaluated in patients treated with Forsus (FG; n = 20), headgear (CHG; n = 20), and fixed orthodontic appliances involving extraction of the upper first premolars (EG; n = 20). A total of 480 teeth were evaluated using panoramic radiographs obtained at T1 (after active treatment) and T2 (during retention). ARR was assessed using a scoring system ranging from 0 to 4. ANOVA, the Kruskal-Wallis test, and the chi-square test were used for statistical analysis.
resultsARR of the lower right lateral incisors in the FG was greater than that in the CHG at T1 (P = 0.031). In the EG, greater ARR was observed in the upper right lateral incisors at T1 (P = 0.037) and in the upper left central incisors at T2 (P = 0.038) compared with the FG. The resorption scores of the incisors did not change between T1 and T2 in any group, except for the lower left central incisors.
conclusionsCorrection of Class II malocclusions using Forsus, headgear, or extraction of the maxillary first premolars followed by fixed appliance treatment results in varying degrees of ARR after active treatment.
trial registrationRetrospective observational study. This study evaluated data from the years 2015 to 2024.
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.