ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2018
Differential Benefit of Two Different Tooth-Borne Rapid Maxillary Expansion Appliances in Female Subjects.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2018. 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of tooth-borne acrylic-bonded rapid maxillary expansion (RME) appliances with or without the anterior teeth anchorage on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures, as well as soft tissues.
methodsThis study included 44 patients who were treated with two different tooth-borne bonded acrylic RME appliances. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken before the treatment (T0) and in the post-retention (T1) phase of the RME treatment. The posterior-bonded RME appliance group and full-bonded RME appliance group were created as the two different groups of treatment. The following statistical analyses were performed: intra- and inter-group comparisons were made using the paired t-test, Wilcoxon test, independent t-test, and Mann-Whitney U-test for normal and non-normal distribution data.
resultsSignificant increases were observed in R1-A, R1-ANS, R1-U1, R1-AR, R1-St, R1-Li, and R1-Pn in both groups. R1-PNS, R1-Ls, R1-Sn, and R1-B' were found to be significantly larger at T1 than at T0 in the posterior-bonded RME appliance group. R2-A, R2-ANS, R2-L1, R2-A', and R2-Pn were significantly larger at T1 than at T0 in the full-bonded RME appliance group. The R2-A' was significantly different between the groups.
conclusionThe soft tissue A point appears to be the most important differing matter between the two different RME appliances, and a full acrylic-bonded RME appliance may be beneficial for subjects with a maxillary retrognathic profile.
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.