ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2021
Finite element simulations of the effects of an extraoral device, RAMPA, on anterosuperior protraction of the maxilla and comparison with gHu-1 intraoral device.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2021. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomechanical and Aerodynamic Modulation for Sinonasal Homeostasis in Craniofacial Orthopedics: A Comprehensive Review of RAMPA Therapy.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Mechanotherapeutic Modulation of the Nasal Microenvironment: RAMPA-Induced Maxillofacial Remodeling and Its Pathophysiological Impact on Mucus Rheology and Chronic Inflammation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- CBCT Volumetric Changes in Combined Nasal Cavity and Paranasal Sinuses Following RAMPA-ROA Therapy: A Retrospective Cohort Study with Reference to Longitudinal Growth Data.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of RAMPA Therapy on Nasal Cavity Expansion and Paranasal Drainage: Fluid Mechanics Analysis, CAE Simulation, and a Case Study.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the effects of an extraoral device, right-angle maxillary protraction appliance (RAMPA), combined with a semi-rapid maxillary expansion intraoral device (gHu-1) on the anterosuperior protraction of maxillary bone. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe finite element (FE) model included craniofacial bones and all sutures. The linear assumption was assumed for the FE simulations and the material properties of bones and sutures. The gHu-1 was simulated under screw activations equal to Δx = 0.25 and 0.5 mm in the lateral direction with and without RAMPA under a set of external forces {F1 = 2.94, F2 = 1.47, F3 = 4.44} N.
resultsDisplacement contours, nodal displacements of 12 landmarks, and von Mises stresses were compared. Combining RAMPA and gHu-1 (with Δx = 0.25 mm) resulted in changes in the displacement of the front part of the maxilla near the mid-palatal suture from (0.02, -0.1, -0.02) mm to (0.02, 0.3, 0.8) mm. For gHu-1 with Δx = 0.5 mm, the displacement of the same part changed from (0.04, -0.04, -0.2) mm to (0.04, 0.3, 0) mm. Similar trends were found in other locations.
conclusionsThe findings are in agreement with the previous cephalometric clinical data of an 8-year-old patient and prove the positive effects of RAMPA on the anterosuperior protraction of the maxilla when it is combined with the intraoral device gHu-1. In addition, RAMPA does not interfere with the lateral expansion generated by the intraoral device.
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.