ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2024
Evaluation of maxillary dimensional changes in the mixed dentition: clear aligners vs acrylic expanders.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness of clear aligners for maxillary expansion in growing patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Pooled it
- Predictability of clear aligners in achieving planned dental arch expansion during mixed dentition: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Angle orthodontist · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative Evaluation of Transverse Maxillary Arch Changes in Mixed Dentition with Clear Aligners vs Conventional Maxillary Expanders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Efficacy and stability of maxillary arch expansion with clear aligners versus conventional slow maxillary expanders in growing patients: A multicenter prospective cohort study.Korean journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Longitudinal Changes in Occlusal Outcomes and Case Complexity with InvisalignDentistry journal · 2026Article
- Linear Geometric Analysis of Maxillary Expansion in Mixed Dentition: Rapid Palatal Expander Versus Invisalign First System.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- The three-dimensional influence and clinical significance of anterior traction with rapid expansion during dental replacement.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare changes in upper arch dimension and molar inclination between Invisalign First (IF) and removable acrylic expander (RE) treatments during the mixed dentition period. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventeen patients meeting inclusion criteria underwent IF treatment and were age matched with a group that received treatment with a removable acrylic expander (RE). Intercanine width (ICW), intermolar width, arch depth, buccolingual inclination of the first molars (MI), surface area (SA) and volume (VAP) of the anterior palate, and expansion were compared before and after treatment. The predictability of expansion was calculated for the IF group. Analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to assess differences.
resultsThe ICW increased significantly by 2.14 mm in the IF group and 3.49 mm in the RE group, with no significant intergroup difference. Both groups exhibited significant increases in intermolar width (P < .05), except for intermolar distopalatal width in the IF group (P = .246). Mesiobuccal rotation of the first molar was observed with IF treatment. Although SA and VAP increased in both groups, the changes were not significant for the IF group (P > .05). The RE group exhibited significantly higher increases (P < .05), with an SA increase of 34.32 mm2 and VAP increase of 119.15 mm3. MI changes were in the opposite directions. The prediction accuracy of expansion was 70.28% for canines and 34.12% for first molars.
conclusionsBoth appliances effectively expanded the intercanine region in growing patients. Expansion predictability was lower in first molars than in canines for the IF group. Removable acrylic expanders could be a choice of preference for expansion targeted to the molar region.
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.