Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2019
Cephalometric evaluation of rapid and slow maxillary expansion in patients with BCLP:
Trial report in The Angle orthodontist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Covariation Between Palatal Shape and Craniofacial Morphology in Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip, Alveolus, and Palate: A Geometric Morphometric Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Cement Remaining After Debonding and Polishing in Lingual Multibracket Appliance Using Planning Imaging 3D Software.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Assessment of early dental arch growth modification with removable maxillary expansion by cone-beam computed tomography and lateral cephalometric radiographs: a retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Effect of Maxillary Expansion on the Maxillary Arch Width in Patients with Bilateral Cleft Palate: A Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- The Combination of Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy and Photobiomodulation Therapy for the Treatment of Palatal Ulcers: A Case Report.Journal of lasers in medical sciences · 2020Article
- A prospective cohort study on the effects of RME in the mandibular dentition of cleft subjects.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the dentoskeletal effects of rapid (RME) and slow (SME) maxillary expansion in patients with bilateral complete cleft lip and palate (BCLP). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a secondary analysis of a previous randomized controlled trial (RCT). Forty-six patients (34 male, 12 female) with BCLP and posterior crossbite (mean age of 9.2 years) were randomly assigned to two study groups. Group RME comprised subjects treated with Haas/Hyrax expander. Group SME included patients treated with quad-helix appliance. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed before expansion (T1) and after appliance removal at the end of a 6-month retention period (T2) for a previous RCT that compared the transverse skeletal effects of RME and SME. CBCT-derived cephalometric images were generated and cephalometric analysis was performed using Dolphin Imaging Software (Chatsworth, Calif). Intergroup comparisons were performed using
resultsBaseline forms were similar between groups. No significant differences between RME and SME groups were found.
conclusionsRapid and slow maxillary expansion produced similar sagittal and vertical changes in patients with BCLP. Both Haas/Hyrax and quad-helix appliances can be used in patients with vertical facial pattern. Clinical relevance: RME and SME can be equally indicated in the treatment of maxillary arch constriction in patients with BCLP.
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.