Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26620733›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2016

Analysis of the dentoalveolar effects of slow and rapid maxillary expansion in complete bilateral cleft lip and palate patients: a randomized clinical trial.

Arthur César de Medeiros Alves, Daniela Gamba Garib, Guilherme Janson, Araci Malagodi de Almeida, Louise Resti Calil

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Arthur César de Medeiros AlvesDepartment of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Alameda Doutor Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, 9-75, ZIP CODE 17012-191, Vila Nova Cidade Universitária, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. arthurcesar_88@hotmail.com.
Daniela Gamba GaribDepartment of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Alameda Doutor Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, 9-75, ZIP CODE 17012-191, Vila Nova Cidade Universitária, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil.
Guilherme JansonDepartment of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Alameda Doutor Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, 9-75, ZIP CODE 17012-191, Vila Nova Cidade Universitária, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil.
Araci Malagodi de AlmeidaDepartment of Orthodontics, Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, Rua Silvio Marchione, 3-20, ZIP CODE 17012-900, Vila Nova Cidade Universitária, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil.
Louise Resti CalilDepartment of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Alameda Doutor Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, 9-75, ZIP CODE 17012-191, Vila Nova Cidade Universitária, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil.
Universidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare the dentoalveolar effects of slow (SME) and rapid (RME) maxillary expansions in patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP). MATERIAL AND

methodsA sample of 50 patients with BCLP and maxillary arch constriction was randomly and equally allocated into two groups. Group SME comprised patients (mean age of 8.8 years) treated with quad-helix appliance. Group RME comprised individuals (mean age of 8.9 years) treated with Hyrax expander. Digital dental models obtained immediately pre-expansion (T1) and 6 months after the active expansion period (T2) were used for measuring maxillary dental arch widths, arch perimeter, arch length, palatal depth, buccolingual inclination of posterior teeth and differential amount of expansion accomplished at the canine and molar regions. Inter-phase and intergroup comparisons were performed using paired t tests and t tests, respectively (p < 0.05).

resultsSME and RME caused significant increase of arch widths and arch perimeter. Arch length and palatal depth decreased nonsignificantly with SME but significantly with RME. Buccal tooth inclination was significant only for maxillary deciduous canines in both groups. The quad-helix appliance showed a significant differential expansion between anterior and posterior regions. No differences were observed between SME and RME for all variables.

conclusionsDifferences were not found between the dentoalveolar effects of SME and RME in patients with BCLP. SME demanded a greater therapy time compared to RME. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both expansion procedures can be similarly indicated to correct maxillary arch constriction in patients with BCLP in the mixed dentition.

Indexed as

ChildCleft LipCleft PalateDental ArchFemaleHumansMaleMaxillaPalatal Expansion TechniqueTreatment OutcomeComplete bilateral cleft lip and palateDigital dental modelsRapid maxillary expansionSlow maxillary expansion

Identifiers

PMID26620733
OpenAlexW2181326021

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.