ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2025
Treatment effects of modified miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expander and rapid palatal expander for molar distalization.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bone-Screw-Force Interactions in Palatal Orthodontic Mini-Implants: A Scoping Review and Decision Framework for Primary Stability and Biomechanically Driven Site Selection.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
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
objectivesTo evaluate the treatment effects of the modified miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expander (MARPE) and rapid palatal expander (RPE) with distalizers in patients with Class II malocclusion and maxillary crowding. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe sample comprised 28 skeletal Class I adolescents with dental Class II malocclusion and maxillary crowding of >4 mm who received nonextraction treatment. Fourteen patients were treated with a modified MARPE with distalizer (MMD), while another 14 patients were treated with a modified RPE with distalizer (MRD). Lateral cephalograms and study casts were taken at pretreatment (T1) and after expansion, distalization, and at the initiation of alignment (T2). Twenty-nine variables were compared using a Bonferroni-adjusted independent t-test and a Mann-Whitney U-test.
resultsFrom T1 to T2, the maxillary first molars in the MMD group exhibited distalization of 3.0 mm and 2.4 mm at the crown and root (P < .001) compared with 2.1 mm and 1.4 mm in the MRD group. However, no significant difference was found in distalization between the two groups. The first molars in the MRD group showed a significantly greater distal tipping of 2.8° than in the MMD group (P < .001).
conclusionsAlthough both groups showed maxillary molar distalization, the MMD group had no distal molar tipping, while there was significant molar tipping in the MRD group. It can be useful to plan nonextraction treatment with maxillary expansion and molar distalization in patients with Class II malocclusion and a narrow maxillary arch.
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.