ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2015
Quad-helix appliances may be more successful than removable expansion plates at correcting posterior crossbites.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2015. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
data sourcesThe Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Medline, Embase, the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register and the World Health Organisation (WHO) Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched with no restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites in children and adults were considered. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study selection, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out independently by two reviewers. Dichotomous data were summarised with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and continuous data with mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs. Meta-analyses were conducted when comparisons and outcomes were sufficiently similar.
resultsFifteen studies were included; seven were at high risk of bias, two at low risk and six at unclear risk. Nine studies compared fixed appliances with mid-palatal expansion but no difference between appliances was reported. Low quality evidence from two studies with 96 participants found that fixed quad-helix appliances may be 20% more likely to correct crossbites than removable expansion plates (RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.37), and quad-helix appliances may achieve 1.15 mm more molar expansion than expansion plates (MD 1.15 mm; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.90;). Very limited evidence showed that both fixed quad-helix appliances and removable expansion plates were superior to composite onlays in terms of crossbite correction, molar and canine expansion.
conclusionsThere is a very small body of low to moderate quality evidence to suggest that the quad-helix appliance may be more successful than removable expansion plates at correcting posterior crossbites and expanding the inter-molar width for children with early mixed dentition (aged eight to 10 years). The remaining evidence we found was of very low quality and was insufficient to allow the conclusion that any one intervention is better than another for any of the outcomes in this review.
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.