ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparison of changes in nasal cavity and maxillary sinus volumes after facemask treatment with or without expansion in class III maxillary deficiency subjects.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study was designed to evaluate and contrast the volumetric changes occurring within the nasal cavity (NC) and maxillary sinuses (MS) in patients during growth periods with Class III malocclusion, treated with either face mask (FM) or FM with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) treatment, utilizing cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND
methodsPre-treatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1) cone beam computed tomography scans of 38 growing Class III patients (21 females, 17 males) treated with FM and FM/RME were determined and allocated into two groups: The FM/RME (11 females, 8 males; mean age, 11.71 ± 1.145 years) and the FM group (10 females, 9 males; mean age, 11.75 ± 1.021 years). The volumes of NC, right maxillary sinus (R-MS), left maxillary sinus (L-MS) and total maxillary sinus (T-MS) were measured at two time points: T0 and T1.
resultsAt the beginning of treatment(T0), there was no difference in the volumes of NC, R-MS, L-MS, T-MS in both FM and FM/RME groups. Both groups (FM/RME and FM) showed statistically significant increases in all volumetric measurements (NC, R-MS, L-MS, T-MS). In the comparison between the groups, a statistically significant difference was observed only in the NC measurement, while no significant differences were found in the other measurements (MS, L-MS, T-MS).
conclusionsBoth FM and FM/RME are effective treatment modalities for increasing NC and MS volumes. FM/RME is a more effective treatment protocol for increasing NC volume.
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.