ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2023
Comparison of Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Constriction Protocols with Face Mask Therapy.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Soft tissue changes associated with Class III orthopaedic treatment in growing patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Progress in orthodontics · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions procedures on root development compared to rapid maxillary expansion during orthodontic face mask treatment.BMC oral health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study compared dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes with face mask (FM) therapy. Rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC) protocols were used with the two different types of expansion appliance, and their effects on the treatment outcome were investigated. Methods: The study consisted of 79 (37 and 42 patients in the RME and Alt-RAMEC groups with FM, respectively) patients who had received FM treatment. The effects of the RME/FM (20 female, 17 male) and Alt-RAMEC/FM (14 female, 28 male) protocols were evaluated using lateral cephalometric films. The chronological ages of the RME/FM and Alt-RAMEC/FM groups were 11.58 and 11.99 years, respectively. In addition, both groups were divided into two subgroups based on the design of the expansion appliance (Spolyar or full coverage type). Differences in all parameters were analyzed using Student's t-tests. Results: The maxilla significantly moved forward in both the RME/FM and Alt-RAMEC/FM groups (p<0.001). No significant skeletal differences were observed between the groups. Sagittal movement of the upper incisors significantly increased, and the lower incisors significantly retruded in both groups. While similar skeletal changes were found between the Spolyar and full-coverage appliance groups, the upper incisors protruded significantly more in the full-coverage type. Conclusion: RME/FM and Alt-RAMEC/FM therapies were found to be efficient for maxillary protraction and resulted in similar skeletal changes. A full-coverage expansion appliance produced a more upper incisor protrusion than a spherical-type appliance.
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.