ArticleContemporary clinical dentistry
Effect of Different Mini Implant Assisted Rapid Palatal Expansion (MARPE) Designs on Maxillary Protraction in Skeletal Class III malocclusion: An FEM Study.
Article in Contemporary clinical dentistry. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Four different designs of mini-implant-assisted rapid palatal expansion (MARPE) and protraction in nasomaxillary complex and mid-palatal sutures in late adolescent skeletal Class III malocclusion were compared using a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Methods: A finite element model of skull and related sutures was constructed using the computed tomography scan of a 16-year-old female patient with skeletal Class III and ANB of -2°. Four appliance designs: Type I: MARPE with palatal force, Type II: MARPE with buccal force, Type III: Hybrid hyrax with palatal force, and Type IV: Hybrid hyrax with buccal force. Protraction vectors were and analyzed using Ansys software (ANSYS 2021 R2). The displacement pattern of the nasomaxillary structures and the stress distribution in the sutures were examined in all four appliance designs. Results: All the appliance designs resulted in a forward movement of the maxilla, while Type I and III, which used palatal protraction force, caused the greatest forward displacement. In Type I, II, and III, along with forward movement, a clockwise rotation of maxilla was observed, while in Type IV, an anticlockwise rotation of maxilla was observed. Type I, II, and III resulted in higher stress distribution around the superior structures, while Type IV resulted in less stress distribution around the superior structures of maxilla. Conclusion: The forward displacement was enhanced when palatal plates were used to protract the maxilla. The effective appliance design for skeletal class III with open bite case was Type I, II, and III and Type IV for deep bite cases.
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.