ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2022
Does the Alternate Rapid Maxillary ExpansionConstriction/Reverse Headgear Therapy Enhance Pharyngeal Airway Dimensions?
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Three-Dimensional Evaluation of the Effects of Different Treatment Methods on Pharyngeal Airways in Patients with Skeletal Class III Malocclusion.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe enhanced effect of maxillary protraction following the Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion-Constriction/Reverse Headgear (AltRAMEC/RH) protocol over the Rapid Maxillary Expansion/Reverse Headgear (RME/RH) protocol has been well documented. However, it is not known if the airway dimensions also follow a similar enhancement. This retrospective cohort study therefore aims to compare dimensional changes in the pharyngeal airway after maxillary protraction following RME/RH, versus AltRAMEC/RH.
methodsPre- and post-treatment lateral cephalograms of 46 skeletal Class III patients with maxillary retrusion, who had undergone maxillary protraction using the AltRAMEC/RH or RME/RH protocol were compared for 20 dentoskeletal and airway variables. The waiting period of 6-8 months before initiating treatment served as the control period. The results were statistically evaluated using the paired t-test, the independent t-test, and the intraclass correlation coefficient.
resultsThe nasopharyngeal airway indicators in the AltRAMEC/RH group (PNS-ad1, PNS-ad2, UPD) showed a statistically significant mean increase of 2.09 mm, 2.74 mm, and 1.30 mm respectively. This was significantly more pronounced than the RME/RH group (P < .001). The control period did not show any significant change, thus showing the negligible effect of growth on the airway dimension. No significant changes were observed in the oropharyngeal airway indicators for both groups (P > .001).
conclusionsThe AltRAMEC/RH protocol produced more significant improvement in the nasopharyngeal airway dimensions as compared to the RME/RH protocol. The changes in the oropharyngeal airway were insignificant with both the protocols.
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.