SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Analysis of the efficacy of conventional, skeletal and invisible orthodontic appliance for upper molar distalization in Class II Malocclusion patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesTo assess the efficacy of conventional, skeletal and invisible orthodontic appliance for maxillary first molar distalization.
methodsOn February 14, 2023, an electronic search was conducted to review molar distalization using conventional, skeletal and invisible appliance, and two updated searches were conducted on August 31, 2023 and November 31,2024. After study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment, meta-analyses were performed for molar distalization, molar tipping, incisor movement, incisor tipping and mandibular plane angle change using random-effects model.
results55 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria, and 26 studies underwent meta-analysis. The clear aligner group demonstrated a significant reduction in upper molar distalization and tipping (2.33mm; 3.01°) compared to conventional appliance (3.29mm; 6.39°) and skeletal appliance (3.48mm; 5.84°) groups. Conventional appliance group experienced a significantly greater loss of anchorage (1.69mm; 3.99°) and a greater increase in mandibular plane angle (0.66°). Molar distalization after the eruption of the maxillary second molar may lead to greater loss of anchorage (1.76mm; 3.99°). 4-premolar-support group (4.09mm; 8.24°) appeared to produce more molar distalization and tipping than 2-premolar-support group (2.72mm; 4.90°). Buccal-miniscrew subgroup exhibited a smaller molar distalization(2.01mm) compared to palatal-miniscrew (3.81mm) and infrazygomatic-miniscrew subgroups(4.90mm).
conclusionsThe use of clear aligners resulted in a decrease in molar distal tipping but also led to a reduction in distalization, while the use of conventional appliances resulted in higher anchorage loss and a greater increase in mandibular plane angle. Distalization after the eruption of U7 may increase the risk of anchorage loss. 4-premolar-support anchorage improved the molar distalization, but also increased molar tipping in comparison to 2-premolar-support anchorage. Alternatively, palatal miniscrew support resulted in higher distal tipping but less incisor distal movement and tipping. However, additional RCTs or prospective studies are strongly recommended to provide further clinical evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.