ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Sutural deformation during bone-anchored maxillary protraction.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A finite element study on three maxillary protraction devices for treating maxillary sagittal hypoplasia at different levels of bone fusion.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Zygomaticotemporal suture maturation evaluation in Chinese population using cone-beam computed tomography images.Korean journal of orthodontics · 2023Article
- Finite element analysis of sagittal screw expander appliance in the treatment of anterior maxillary hypoplasia.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Orthopedic and Nonsurgical Orthodontic Treatment of Adolescent Skeletal Class III Malocclusion Using Bone-Anchored Maxillary Protraction and Temporary Anchorage Devices: A Case Report.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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
introductionBone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP) is an emerging treatment option for orthopedic correction of maxillary deficiency in young patients. Compared to reverse pull headgear (RPHG), it is believed that forces generated during BAMP result in greater circum-maxillary sutural separation, mandibular retrusion, and improved maxillary protraction. Mechanical loading of the circum-maxillary sutures during BAMP is still poorly understood.
methods20 ex-vivo pig heads were used. Miniplates and molar tubes were installed like clinical procedures. A series of five 200 g-force (gf) elastics were applied on the right and left side until 1000gf were reached. Strain gauges were installed across the zygomatico-maxillary (ZMS), zygomatico-temporal (ZTS), and nasofrontal suture (NFS). Differential variable reluctance transducers (DVRTs) were installed across the ZTS. Deformation of the sutures during BAMP and RPHG was measured and compared.
resultsHigher average sutural deformation of the ZTS and ZMS was seen in BAMP than RPHG: 36.6 ± 20.6με vs 18.0 ± 12.4με and 54.7 ± 28.5με vs 12.5 ± 14.8με, respectively. Similarly, higher NFS deformation was seen in BAMP (18.4 ± 12.9με vs. -0.8 ± 12.0με). DVRT data showed higher ZTS separation in BAMP than RPHG (6.3 ± 5.2 μm vs. 1.7 ± 2.1 μm). These differences were all statistically significant using the Wilcoxon-signed rank test.
conclusionBoth RPHG and BAMP forces separate the ZTS and ZMS. BAMP resulted in higher levels of sutural separation at the ZTS and ZMS by 2- and 5-fold, respectively.
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.