ReviewThe Saudi dental journal2024
Why does maxillary skeletal expansion work with some adults and fail with Others?: A narrative review.
Review in The Saudi dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of palatal bone thickness and palatal depth angle for optimal mini-implant placement in MARPE: A CBCT study.Journal of orthodontic science · 2026Article
- A new CBCT evaluation for individual assessment of midpalatal suture maturation: a retrospective analysis.Frontiers in 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Maxillary skeletal expansion is considered a challenging treatment modality in adult ages. Mini-screw-assisted rapid palatal expansion (MARPE) is considered a pioneer in providing a solution for maxillary deficiency in adults away from any surgical interventions. If we consider patient cooperation and motivation, together with operator skills, as constant factors during MARPE, and exclude all hygiene and soft tissue complications that jeopardise the appliance's stability, there is a percentage of expansion failure recorded in different studies with no emphasis on what makes mid-facial diastema appear in some, rather than others. Electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, were searched for literature published in English till 2023. Failure was related in some literature to different criteria, as of yet, no verifiable indicators would allow us to determine success or failure in advance. This review highlighted the most common reasons for failure discussed in different literature: Chronological Age, Mid-palatal suture maturation, Bone density, Sex, Race, Appliance design, and Expansion technique used. This study could be considered an attempt to make candidate selection for non-surgical maxillary skeletal expansion at this old age easier, time-saving, and cost less.
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.