ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Final incisor position across sagittal and vertical skeletal patterns in Chinese orthodontic patients with acceptable posttreatment profiles.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to describe the distribution of final incisor position in orthodontically treated Chinese patients with acceptable profile outcomes across different sagittal and vertical skeletal patterns. MATERIALS AND
methodsPosttreatment lateral cephalograms of 727 patients aged ≥ 16 years were analyzed. Patients were stratified according to pretreatment sagittal skeletal classification (Class I, II, III) and vertical skeletal pattern (low, normal, high angle). Incisor inclination, anteroposterior position (AP position) and vertical level were compared among groups.
resultsIncisor inclination differed significantly across both sagittal and vertical skeletal patterns, with angular differences reaching 12.09° (d > 1.0). Sagittal skeletal classification exerted a dominant influence on maxillary incisor AP position, with intergroup differences in U1-NA exceeding 2.3 mm (d > 1.14), whereas mandibular incisors demonstrated limited AP displacement (< 2 mm) despite marked angular variation. Pogonion-referenced indices (U1-Pog, L1-Pog) differed significantly across sagittal and vertical patterns (P < 0.001), reflecting systematic variation in incisor position relative to facial projection.
conclusionsFinal incisor position did not converge toward a single common reference. Incisor inclination varied with both sagittal and vertical morphology. Anteroposterior position was associated mainly with sagittal pattern, especially in the maxillary incisors, whereas mandibular incisors showed limited anteroposterior displacement. Chin-referenced measurements provided additional information on final incisor position in relation to facial projection. These findings provide descriptive skeletal-pattern-conditioned reference distributions, rather than universal reference values or evidence-based optimal treatment targets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42771193What 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.