ArticleJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2016
Differential treatment effects of two anchorage systems for rapid maxillary expansion: a retrospective cephalometric study.
Article in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The sutural and dentoskeletal effects of alternate expansion and constriction of deficient maxilla in young adults: a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Why does maxillary skeletal expansion work with some adults and fail with Others?: A narrative review.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Review
- Development of a novel histological and histomorphometric evaluation protocol for a standardized description of the mid-palatal suture - An ex vivo study.Journal of anatomy · 2019Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare cephalometric changes resulting from treatment with two appliances for rapid maxillary expansion: (1) a strictly tooth-borne appliance and (2) a combined tooth- and bone-borne appliance. PATIENTS AND
methodsPre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms of 100 patients were analyzed by cephalometry. Of these patients, 50 were treated with strictly tooth-borne and another 50 with combined tooth- and bone-borne appliances. Mean pretreatment age was 13.04 ± 4.82 years, and mean treatment duration was 7.12 ± 2.37 months. To identify any implications for clinical therapy, additional subgroups were formed based on the pretreatment cephalometric findings for skeletal Class I (0° < ANB ≤ 4°) or Class III (ANB ≤0°). Paired t-tests were used for intragroup and analysis of variance (ANOVA) for intergroup comparisons. Results were considered statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.
resultsBoth appliance types resulted in significant cephalometric changes in the maxilla and mandible. Compared to the strictly tooth-borne appliances, the combined tooth- and bone-borne appliances were found to cause more pronounced advancement of the maxilla (SNA angle) notably among the Class III patients.
conclusionsHybrid (combined tooth- and bone-borne) appliances for rapid maxillary expansion might be preferable in the treatment of skeletal Class III patients, since they possibly exert a more pronounced skeletal effect on the sagittal position of the maxilla.
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.