2022
DOI: 10.1186/s40510-022-00440-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of rapid versus slow maxillary expansion on patient-reported outcome measures in growing patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: Background No systematic review and meta-analysis are present in the literature comparing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in rapid maxillary expansion (RME) versus slow maxillary expansion (SME) in growing patients. Objective The objective of this systematic review was to compare PROMs in RME versus SME in growing patients. Materials and Methods Electronic search in PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochran… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The occurrence of skeletal expansion was clinically assumed by the appearance of the diastema between central incisors. In this regard, slow maxillary expansion generates similar dento-skeletal effect compared to RME, with less stress exerted on the midpalatal suture and less discomfort in children [ 23 , 24 ]. However, since the study did not include radiographic examination of post-treatment changes, it was not possible to quantitative estimate either the amount of skeletal expansion on both sides or the ratio between skeletal and dento-alveolar effects.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The occurrence of skeletal expansion was clinically assumed by the appearance of the diastema between central incisors. In this regard, slow maxillary expansion generates similar dento-skeletal effect compared to RME, with less stress exerted on the midpalatal suture and less discomfort in children [ 23 , 24 ]. However, since the study did not include radiographic examination of post-treatment changes, it was not possible to quantitative estimate either the amount of skeletal expansion on both sides or the ratio between skeletal and dento-alveolar effects.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note that a 2% w/v MC solution (moderately thick, Level 3) was also tested, but negligible aspiration was observed and thus not presented. To evaluate the swallowing effort, the liquid was dispensed at two different speeds, namely normal and slow, which involved dispensing 5 mL of liquid within 1 s and 3 s, respectively [38][39][40]. Each test was repeated at least three times to ensure consistency.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are no differences in discomfort between the two treatments in the weeks that followed. [ 32 ] Speaking, swallowing, hypersalivation, hygiene, and patient and parent satisfaction scores did not significantly differ between the RME and SME. Neither the significant differences found in hypersalivation, hygiene, or patient or parent satisfaction scores.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%