ArticleDentistry journal2022
Improving Nasal Airflow with a Novel Nasal Breathing Stent.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Subjective and Objective Evaluation of a Novel Nasal Tip Elevating Strip for Nasal Obstruction: A Pilot Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Biofilm-Antagonist Ginger-Based 3D-Printable Photoresins for Complex Implant Designs Exhibiting Advanced Multifunctional Biomedical Applications.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nasal obstruction requires close attention, as it is a risk factor for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). This study evaluated airflow rates of our newly designed nasal breathing stent (NBS) compared with those of existing nasal dilators in 10 adult men. We hypothesized that the NBS would expand the nasal passage more than the other nasal dilators by means of airflow measurements. We compared airflow measurements between the NBS and three existing appliances and no appliance. Velocity measurements were recorded by analyzing 499 videographic images when each appliance was placed next to a steam generator at 0, 5, and 10 mm from the outlet port for airflow visualization. The peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) rate was measured using an inspiratory flow meter. The NBS resulted in significantly higher airflow velocity measurements at all distances from the outlet port and a higher PNIF rate than the other appliances. Thus, the NBS offers a significantly decreased resistance to air movement compared with other appliances. Future in-depth investigations are required to demonstrate the use of NBS as a nasal dilator in conjunction with continuous positive airway pressure/oral appliance treatments in patients with OSA.
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.