Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42801521›Full record

SynthesisClinical and experimental dental research2026

Comparison Between Skeletally-Anchored and Conventional Maxillary Protraction in Growing Class ΙΙΙ Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Christianna Iris Papadopoulou, Nusha Paschaei, Giulia Brunello, Rebecca Jungbauer, Kathrin Becker

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

5 authors.

Christianna Iris PapadopoulouDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Center for Oral Health Sciences CC3, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2038-0599
Nusha PaschaeiDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Center for Oral Health Sciences CC3, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4623-1535
Giulia BrunelloDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Center for Oral Health Sciences CC3, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1436-0085
Rebecca JungbauerDepartment of Orthodontics, University Medical Centre Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Kathrin BeckerDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Center for Oral Health Sciences CC3, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1936-4683

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the skeletal and dental effects of skeletally-anchored (SA) maxillary protraction compared with conventional facemask (FM) therapy in growing patients with Class III malocclusion, while controlling for the confounding effect of rapid maxillary expansion (RME). MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic literature search (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Virtual Health Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar), which involved two screening stages, was performed until January 2026 and identified prospective clinical trials comparing SA with conventional tooth-borne FM therapy. Only studies in which expansion protocols were applied uniformly across groups were included. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools, and random effects meta-analyses were conducted for cephalometric outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated according to the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.

resultsFive prospective trials (3 RCTs, 2 CCTs; n = 194 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Random-effects meta-analyses showed a modest but significant greater increase in SNA for SA (MD 0.65°; 95% CI 0.18-1.13, I

conclusionsWithin the limitations of the available short-term evidence, and given the low-to-moderate certainty of the pooled estimates, SA was associated with fewer dental side effects and a statistically significant, though not clinically relevant, gain in skeletal efficacy. Future long-term, age-stratified randomized trials are needed to confirm the long-term stability of these findings.

Indexed as

Extraoral Traction AppliancesMalocclusion, Angle Class IIIOrthodontic Anchorage ProceduresPalatal Expansion TechniqueCephalometryChildHumansMaxillaclass IIIfacemaskmaxillary protractionskeletal anchorage

Identifiers

PMID42801521
PMCPMC13616234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.