ArticleKorean journal of orthodontics2024
Evaluation of condylar dimension and position following rapid maxillary expansion with tooth- or tooth-bone-borne appliances.
Article in Korean journal of orthodontics, 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess and compare changes in the dimension and position of the mandibular condyle after tooth-borne (Hyrax) and tooth-bone-borne (Hybrid Hyrax) expansion. Methods: Twenty-five patients who underwent expansion with either tooth-borne appliances (8 girls, 5 boys; mean age 14.3 ± 2.3 years) or tooth-bone-borne appliances (6 girls, 6 boys; mean age 13.8 ± 2.2 years) were examined. Condylar and glenoid fossa morphology before (T0) and 3 months after (T1) expansion were evaluated using cone-beam computed tomography. Condylar measurements (anterior, posterior, and superior joint spaces; condylar height, length, and width), along with sagittal and vertical skeletal and maxillary transversal measurements, were analyzed using Dolphin Imaging software. Wilcoxon and Paired Results: At both T0 and T1, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of condylar dimensions or the position of the condyle within the glenoid fossa. Maxillary transversal measurements increased after expansion in both groups ( Conclusions: Neither tooth-borne nor tooth-bone-borne expansion caused significant changes in the condylar dimensions and position at the end of treatment.
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.