Trial reportClinical oral investigations2023
Comparison of nasal cavity changes between the expander with differential opening and the fan-type expander: a secondary data analysis from an RCT.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Midpalatal suture split after differential and fan-type expansion: a secondary analysis from a randomized clinical trial.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2026Trial
- Three-dimensional CBCT evaluation of nasal and pharyngeal airway changes after rapid maxillary expansion: A study among growing children.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Relationship Between Maxillary Transverse Deficiency and Respiratory Problems: A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Devices over the Past Decade.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Nasal septum deviation after rapid maxillary expansion in the early mixed dentition.The Angle orthodontist · 2025Article
- The role of orthodontists in the multidisciplinary management of obstructive sleep apnea.Progress in orthodontics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to compare the nasal cavity skeletal changes between the expander with differential opening (EDO) and the fan-type expander (FE).
methodsThis study was a secondary analysis of a previous randomized clinical trial. Forty-eight patients with posterior crossbite were randomly allocated into two study groups. Twenty-four patients (11 male, 13 female) with a mean initial age of 7.6 ± 0.9 years were treated with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) using the EDO. Twenty-four patients (10 male, 14 female) with a mean initial age of 7.8 ± 0.9 years were treated with the FE. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed before treatment and 1 to 6 months after the active phase of RME. Using frontal CBCT slices passing at the level of maxillary permanent first molars and maxillary deciduous canines, the width of the nasal cavity was measured in the lower, middle and upper thirds. Nasal cavity height was also evaluated in both slices. Intergroup comparisons of interphase changes were performed using t or Mann-Whitney tests (P < 0.05).
resultsThe two groups were similar regarding baseline data. EDO showed a greater transverse increase in the lower third of the nasal cavity in both canine (P = 0.007) and molar regions (P < 0.001). No intergroup difference was observed for changes in middle and upper widths and height of the nasal cavity.
conclusionsBoth expanders are effective in promoting an increase of the nasal cavity skeletal dimensions. The expander with differential opening produced a greater transverse increase in the lower third of the nasal cavity compared to the fan-type expander, both at the anterior and posterior regions of the maxilla. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: EDO might be more beneficial to pediatric patients with oral breathing and obstructive sleep apnea compared to FE.
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.