ArticleBMC oral health2025
The effect of different micro-implant-assisted rapid palatal expanders designed digitally: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to use finite element analysis to compare the effects of different micro-implant-assisted rapid palatal expanders with varying support methods, different numbers and positions of micro-implants designed digitally, to provide a reference for the improved design and clinical application of expanders.
methodsThe models of the craniomaxillary complex, micro-implants, and maxillary skeletal expander were constructed by modeling softwares. The positions of micro-implants were digitally designed via the registration of CBCT and intraoral scans, and the models of the new expanders were built accordingly. The expanders were classified into tooth-bone-borne (Type-1) and bone-borne (Type-2) based on their support methods; into 4-micro-implant (Type-A), linear-6-micro-implant (Type-B), and C-6-micro-implant (Type-C) based on the number and position of micro-implants. Assemble to form six groups of models: A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2. The expanders were activated in two stages: 0.4 mm along the X-axis before the separation of the two halves of the maxilla (Stage 1) and 4 mm after they were separated (Stage 2). The differences in the stresses and displacements were evaluated.
resultsType-C had the widest VMS distribution range of the craniomaxillary complex. In the same implantation position, the VMS of micro-implants and the cortical bone around them showed Type-B < Type-C < Type-A, Type-1 < Type-2. The tipping of the first molar showed Type-1 > Type-2 in Stage 1, while they were equal in Stage 2. In Stage 2, Type-A achieved parallel expansion (the parallelism of expansion in A1 and A2 were 98.3% and 96.5%, respectively), while Type-B and Type-C exhibit a front-wide, back-narrow "V"-shaped expansion. The efficiency of expansion demonstrated Type-B surpassing Type-C and Type-A, and Type-1 equaling Type-2.
conclusionsThe expansion effect of the 6-micro-implant-type was superior to those of the 4-micro-implant-type. Among the 6-micro-implant-type, the C-type had a wider stress distribution range, the linear-type had higher expansion efficiency and better stability of the micro-implants. In clinical practice, it is necessary to design the expanders individually via a digital approach to enhance the efficacy and safety of the expansion and achieve the treatment goals more precisely.
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.