Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37022607›Full record

SynthesisEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2023

Self-perceived pain in Hyrax versus other maxillary expansion orthodontic appliances: a systematic review of clinical studies.

M Altuhafy, L Jabr, D Michelogiannakis, J Khan

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

M AltuhafyDepartment of Orofacial Pain and TMJ Disorders, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, 625 Elmwood Avenue, Rochester, NY, 14620, USA. Maryam_Altuhafy@urmc.rochester.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7025-5728
L JabrDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, 625 Elmwood Avenue, Rochester, NY, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9858-2640
D MichelogiannakisDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, 625 Elmwood Avenue, Rochester, NY, USA.
J KhanDepartment of Orofacial Pain and TMJ Disorders, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, 625 Elmwood Avenue, Rochester, NY, 14620, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3107-6118

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate self-perceived pain levels in the Hyrax compared to other types of maxillary expansion (ME) appliances in growing patients.

methodsAn unrestricted search of indexed databases and manual searching were performed up to October 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the Hyrax appliance with other ME appliances were included. Data screening, extraction, and Risk of Bias (RoB) assessment with the Cochrane tool were performed by two authors.

resultsSix RCTs were included. The number of participants in the included RCTs ranged between 34 to 114 and included both male and female growing patients. Various tools were used to measure self-perceived pain including the Graphic Rating Scale for Pain, the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Scale, the Numerical Rating Scale, the visual analogue scale, and a questionnaire. One RCT reported that pain intensity in patients treated with the Hyrax was higher than in the Haas appliance, with a statistically significant difference limited to the first day. Two RCTs reported that pain intensity in patients treated with the Leaf expander was lower than in the Hyrax during the first 7 days of treatment. Two RCTs reported no significant differences in pain intensity between the Hyrax and other ME appliances. One RCT reported that pain intensity in patients using the computer-guided skeletal ME appliance was higher than in the Hyrax appliance at the first day after expansion. Four RCTs had a high RoB, and two RCTs had a moderate RoB.

conclusionsWithin the limitations of the present systematic review and based on the currently available evidence, it is challenging and inconclusive to identify the best maxillary expansion appliances, regarding pain levels for growing patients.

Indexed as

Orthodontic AppliancesPalatal Expansion TechniqueClinical Studies as TopicFemaleHumansMaleMaxillaPainPain PerceptionHyrax orthodontic applianceOrthodontic treatment painPalatal expansion techniqueRapid maxillary expanders

Identifiers

PMID37022607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.