Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36890253›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2023

Do patient-reported outcomes of miniscrew-supported maxillary expansion in adolescent patients differ between slow and rapid activation protocol?

Rahma ElNaghy, Riyad Al-Qawasmi, Majd Hasanin

Registry-linked trialAbstract readEditorialComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04225637 (Comparison Between Two Activation Protocols of Miniscrew-Supported Maxillary Expander in Adolescents), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04225637 nacompletednot on this map

Comparison Between Two Activation Protocols of Miniscrew-Supported Maxillary Expander in Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAlexandria UniversityRan2019 to 2021Enrolled30ConditionsPalatal Expansion Technique, Malocclusion, Posterior Crossbite, Maxillary HypoplasiaArmsMiniscrew-Supported Maxillary Expander- Slow activation, Miniscrew-Supported Maxillary Expander- Rapid activation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Auditory-Perceptual and Acoustic Characteristics of Sibilant and Vowel Sounds in Children with Cleft Palate Undergoing Rapid Palatal Expansion.Folia phoniatrica et logopaedica : official organ of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (IALP) · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rahma ElNaghyDepartment of Graduate Orthodontics, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, MI, USA. elnaghra@udmercy.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4955-3541
Riyad Al-QawasmiDepartment of Graduate Orthodontics, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, MI, USA.
Majd HasaninDepartment of Graduate Orthodontics, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, MI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

designSingle-center randomized clinical trial with two parallel arms. The protocol of the study was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) of the Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University (IRB: 00010556-IORG: 0008839) and registered in Clinicaltrials.gov (identifier number: NCT04225637). Before the trial commencement, parents/legal guardians signed informed consents. The study complied with the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). CASE SELECTION: 30 adolescent patients aged between 12 to 16 years with transversely deficient maxilla requiring skeletal maxillary expansion were recruited to be included in the study. Patients received miniscrew-supported Penn expanders and they were randomly allocated (ratio 1:1) into two groups based on the activation protocol; slow maxillary expansion (SME = turn every other day) or rapid maxillary expansion (RME = 2 turn/day). DATA ANALYSIS: The patient-reported outcome measures were the following: pain, headache, pressure, dizziness, speech, chewing and swallowing difficulties, swallowing difficulty. The participants rated the reported outcomes using numeric rating scale (NRS) at 4 time points: t

results6 patients were not included in the analysis for different reasons, allowing a total of 24 patients (12 patients in each group) to be analyzed. Mean ages of the patients in the SME and RME group were 14.30 ± 1.37 and 15.07 ± 1.59, respectively. Median scores were in the bottom quartiles of NRS for all reported outcomes. RME group reported significantly higher scores for all measured variables, with exception of headache and dizziness, which showed no statistical difference between the two group.

conclusionsMild to moderate discomfort and functional limitation is anticipated with the activation of miniscrew-anchored Penn expanders. Slow activation protocol provided a better overall patient experience when compared to a rapid activation protocol.

Indexed as

DizzinessPalatal Expansion TechniqueAdolescentChildHeadacheHumansPainPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID36890253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.