Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42773450›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2026

Analysis of the efficacy of AngelAligner A6 mandibular advancer and Twin Block in the treatment of class II malocclusion in growing patients: a prospective clinical study.

Giacomo Scuzzo, Giuseppe Scuzzo, Elena Calzadilla-Suárez, Mario Alvarado-Lorenzo, Laura Criado-Pérez, Adrián Curto, Alfonso Alvarado-Lorenzo

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyControlled Clinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07591025 (Analysis of the Efficacy of AngelAligner A6 Mandibular Advancer and Twin Block in the Treatment of Class II Malocclusion in Growing Patients), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07591025 nacompletednot on this map

Analysis of the Efficacy of AngelAligner A6 Mandibular Advancer and Twin Block in the Treatment of Class II Malocclusion in Growing Patients: a Prospective Clinical Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of SalamancaRan2022 to 2025Enrolled60ConditionsMalocclusion Class IIArmsAngelAligner A6 Mandibular Advancer, Twin Block, Clear aligners
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Giacomo ScuzzoEline Clinic Director, Piazza Gregorio Ronca, 38, Rome, 00122, Italy.
Giuseppe ScuzzoDepartment of Orthodontics, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito, 1, Rome, 00168, Italy.
Elena Calzadilla-SuárezDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, 37008, Spain. elenacalzadillasuarez@gmail.com.
Mario Alvarado-LorenzoDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, 37008, Spain.
Laura Criado-PérezDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, 37008, Spain.
Adrián CurtoDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, 37008, Spain.
Alfonso Alvarado-LorenzoDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, 37008, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough the twin block is the most commonly used appliance for the treatment of Class II malocclusion, the clear aligner industry has developed systems with integrated mandibular advancement. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of Twin block appliances, standard AngelAligner clear aligners and AngelAligner A6 mandibular advancement clear aligners as early orthodontic interventions for patients who develop Class II division 1 malocclusion.

methodsThe study sample comprised 60 patients with a mean age of 12.4 ± 1.3 years, who were divided into three homogeneous groups of 20 patients each and received different treatments: Twin Block (GTB), AngelAligner aligners (GAA) and AngelAligner A6 for mandibular advancement (GA6). Clinical and radiographic assessments were performed at baseline (T0), immediately prior to appliance placement, and repeated after the completion of treatment objectives (T1).

resultsClass II malocclusion was corrected with all three appliances. The GA6 and GTB groups showed similar mandibular advancement, with an increase in the SNB angle of 2.1° and 2.3° respectively, and correction to Class I in 85-90% of cases, outperforming the GAA group, which showed an increase in the SNB angle of 1.2° and correction to Class I in 70% of cases. The duration of treatment was shorter in the GA6 group (15.2 months).

conclusionThese findings suggest that the AngelAligner A6 MA and Twin Block are superior for skeletal correction, whereas the standard AngelAligner is effective for milder cases with aesthetic priorities. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT07591025. Registered 6 May 2026. Retrospectively registered.

Indexed as

Malocclusion, Angle Class IIMandibular AdvancementOrthodontic Appliances, RemovableAdolescentChildFemaleHumansMaleOrthodontic Appliance DesignProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeClass IIClear alignersGrowing patientsMandibular advancementTwin block

Identifiers

PMID42773450
PMCPMC13595502

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.