ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Reliability of Ashley Howes analysis in evaluating expansion potential: a cone beam computed tomography study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. 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
objectivesIn recent times orthodontic treatment trends has swung towards non -extraction treatment. The Ashley Howes analysis evaluates the possibility of expansion based on the apical base. The transversal arch expansion potential of the mandibular arch also plays a role when considering maxillary expansion and should not be disregarded. Although, meant for both maxillary and mandibular arches, the subsequent focus of the analysis had mostly been in the maxillary arch. The aim of this study was to correlate the Ashley Howes analysis with buccal bone thickness at different vertical levels, tooth inclination and apical base width at the region of first premolars measured on CBCT images in both maxillary and mandibular arches. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study design evaluated pretreatment maxillary and mandibular study models and CBCTs of 84 patient records selected for the study. Based on the Ashley Howes analysis they were categorized into Group I (expansion not possible) and Group II (Expansion possible). The independent t-test was used for intergroup comparisons of CBCT parameters and Pearson correlation test was used to assess the relationship between expansion potential and CBCT parameters.
resultsIn both maxillary and mandibular arches, Group II was characterized by greater buccal bone thickness at all vertical levels, greater apical base width and less premolar inclination when compared to groups without expansion potential although these differences were not statistically significant except for the mandibular apical base width. Although correlation between expansion potential and buccal bone thickness was not statistically significant in both the arches, it showed a positive correlation to apical base width and a negative correlation with premolar inclination in the mandibular arch.
conclusionThe Ashley Howes analysis appears to reflect the relevant differences between extraction and non-extraction cases particularly in the mandibular arch. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Ashley Howes analysis could still be an effective tool in evaluating expansion potential and should be performed in both maxillary and mandibular arches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40153094What 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.