SynthesisClinical oral investigations2022
Effectiveness of miniscrew-assisted rapid maxillary expansion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasonic-assisted minimally invasive sarpe and mandibular skeletal anchorage for treatment of class III dentofacial anomalies: a non-endoscopic, minimally invasive approach - systematic review and case series of 10 patients.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative Three Dimensional Evaluation of Skeletal and Dento-Alveolar Effects Between Tooth-Borne and Bone-Anchored Maxillary Expansion for Growing Patients-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2025Pooled it
- The Impact of Mini-Screws and Micro-Implants on Orthodontic Clinical Outcomes: An Umbrella Meta-Analysis.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Pooled it
- Double-Axis Maxillary Skeletal Expander Suggests Higher Expansion Efficiency in Early Activation: A Finite Element Analysis.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2026Article
- Skeletal versus conventional anchorage in dentofacial orthopedics: an international modified Delphi consensus study.Progress in orthodontics · 2025Review
- Comparison of Side Effects Between Miniscrew-Assisted Rapid Palatal Expansion (MARPE) and Surgically Assisted Rapid Palatal Expansion (SARPE) in Adult Patients: A Scoping Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Temporary anchorage devices in orthodontics: a bibliometric analysis of the 50 most-cited articles from 2012 to 2022.The Angle orthodontist · 2023Article
- Clinical Use of Aligners Associated with NuvolaInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the effectiveness and side effects of miniscrew-assisted rapid maxillary expansion (MARME) with conventional rapid maxillary expansion (RME) in the treatment of transverse maxillary deficiency. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases. The quality of included RCTs was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The primary outcome was the extent of dentoskeletal expansion achieved. Secondary outcomes were the dental and periodontal side effects. We calculated summary weighted mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects meta-analysis.
resultsSix RCTs involving 287 participants met the inclusion criteria. Compared to conventional RME, MARME was associated with a greater palatal suture opening (mm) measured at the anterior nasal spine (MD = 1.21, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.66), first premolars (MD = 1.13, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.55), first molars (MD = 1.18, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.09), and posterior nasal spine (MD = 1.14, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.98), increased palatal width (mm) at the first molars (MD = 0.75, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.20), and reduced buccal inclination (degrees) of the first premolars (MD = - 6.06, 95% CI - 10.36 to - 1.76) and first molars (MD = - 3.17, 95% CI - 5.35 to - 0.99).
conclusionsMARME is associated with the following advantages over traditional tooth-borne RME: increased palatal suture opening, increased palatal width, and reduced buccal tooth inclination. REGISTRATION: This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021256750. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: MARME may be preferred over conventional RME in cases with fused mid-palatal sutures or where further buccal tooth inclination is undesirable.
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.