ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Effect of Maxillary Expansion on the Maxillary Arch Width in Patients with Bilateral Cleft Palate: A Review.
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo perform a comprehensive review of the literature to compare the effects of slow maxillary expansion (SME) and rapid maxillary expansion (RME) on maxillary arch width in patients with bilateral cleft palate.
methodsThe databases include Medline, PubMed, Cochrane (CENTRAL) and (CDSR), OpenGrey, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for relevant studies that met the eligibility criteria published before or on 31 October 2022. The search was confined to the English language. The selection of eligible studies and collection of data were performed independently. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0.
resultsTwo randomized controlled trials were available based on the search in the published literature. Both studies compared arch width between SME and RME in cleft palate patients and digitals casts and three-dimensional images used for the evaluation. A moderate risk of bias was evident in the available studies.
conclusionsBoth SME and RME can achieve similar amounts of maxillary expansion in patients with bilateral cleft palate.
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.