ArticleScientific reports2026
Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of different hyrax maxillary expansion protocols compared with novel magnetic expansion: a CBCT-based study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and dental effects of rapid (RME), slow (SME) maxillary expansion, and magnetic maxillary expansion (MME) in adolescents with transverse maxillary deficiency using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). A retrospective analysis was conducted on 39 patients (24 males, 15 females; mean age 12.8 ± 0.9 years), equally divided into three groups (N = 13 each) based on the expansion protocol: RME, SME using hyrax expander appliance, or MME. All patients underwent CBCT imaging at baseline (T1), post-expansion (T2), and after a three-month retention period (T3) were extracted. Skeletal, dentoalveolar, and dental parameters, including maxillary basal widths, alveolar inclination, posterior tooth inclination, vertical dental height, and maxillary molar volume, were measured. Statistical analysis was performed using paired t-tests and ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test (p < 0.05). All three protocols produced significant skeletal and dental expansion from T1 to T2 (p < 0.001). RME achieved the greatest skeletal widening, particularly at the nasal floor (p = 0.013), but was associated with more buccal tipping, molar volume reduction, and significantly greater relapse at the nasal floor during retention (p = 0.006). SME provided moderate but stable outcomes with fewer side effects. MME demonstrated skeletal expansion comparable to SME and, in some parameters, to RME, while showing less relapse and smaller reductions in molar volume. Vertical dental height changes were significant across groups. All expansion methods successfully addressed maxillary constriction. RME delivers quick skeletal corrections but presents a higher risk of relapse and dentoalveolar complications. SME yields stable, gradual results, whereas MME shows promise as a viable alternative, offering effective skeletal expansion with fewer negative effects and potential biological benefits.
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.