ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of anterior fixed appliances on maxillary arch growth in preschool children.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07752147 (Clinical Evaluation of 3D Printed vs CAD/CAM Rehabilitation of Primary Anterior Teeth Loss), which is not on this 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.
Clinical Evaluation of 3D Printed vs CAD/CAM Rehabilitation of Primary Anterior Teeth Loss
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate a new modified fixed appliance for rehabilitation of premature loss of anterior teeth in preschool children versus a modified Nance appliance on maxillary arch growth with parental satisfaction. The study was conducted as a clinical trial and it was carried out at Pediatric Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University. Forty preschool children from both genders aged from 3-5 years were included in the study. The selected children were divided into two groups; Group I: Twenty children received a modified fixed bridge. Group II: Twenty received a modified Nance appliance. Evaluation of both appliances on maxillary growth was carried out at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Finally, parental satisfaction was also recorded. It was revealed that, there was continuous maxillary growth in both groups at different follow up periods with no sexual dimorphism, and parental satisfaction was significantly higher in group I than group II. A modified fixed bridge was better than Nance appliance regarding parental satisfaction and it doesn't interfere with maxillary growth.
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.