Trial reportDental press journal of orthodontics2026
Midpalatal suture split after differential and fan-type expansion: a secondary analysis from a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the opening of the midpalatal suture after rapid maxillary expansion (RME) with the expander with differential opening and the fan-type expander.
methodsRapid maxillary expansion was performed with the expander with differential opening (n=12, 8 female, 4 male, mean age of 7.75 years) and the fan-type expander (n=12, 8 female, 4 male, mean age 8.08 years). CBCT scans were acquired before (T1) and immediately after (T2) the expansion. The outcomes comprised the opening of the midpalatal suture in the anterior and posterior nasal spine. Intergroup comparisons were performed with t or Mann-Whitney U tests (P<0.05).
resultsAll patients showed a midpalatal suture opening with greater increases in the anterior nasal spine compared to the region of the posterior nasal spine. The split in the anterior nasal spine was similar in both groups (P=0.153), while the opening in the posterior nasal spine was 1 mm greater in the differential expansion group (P<0.001). The greater increase in the anterior region of the midpalatal suture in both groups suggested a trapezoidal shape split.
conclusionsThe expander with differential opening and the fan-type expander were capable of splitting the midpalatal suture in the mixed dentition. Despite both appliances showed similar opening in the anterior nasal spine, a greater expansion in the posterior region of the midpalatal suture was observed with the expander with differential opening.
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.