↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the rapid and slow maxillary expansion using cone-beam computed tomography: a randomized clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of the rapid and slow maxillary expansion using cone-beam computed tomography: a randomized clinical trial
Published in
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, April 2017
DOI 10.1590/2177-6709.22.2.061-068.oar
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliana da S. Pereira, Helder B. Jacob, Arno Locks, Mauricio Brunetto, Gerson L. U. Ribeiro

Abstract

The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the dental, dentoalveolar, and skeletal changes occurring right after the rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and slow maxillary expansion (SME) treatment using Haas-type expander. All subjects performed cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) before installation of expanders (T1) and right after screw stabilization (T2). Patients who did not follow the research parameters were excluded. The final sample resulted in 21 patients in RME group (mean age of 8.43 years) and 16 patients in SME group (mean age of 8.70 years). Based on the skewness and kurtosis statistics, the variables were judged to be normally distributed and paired t-test and student t-test were performed at significance level of 5%. Intermolar angle changed significantly due to treatment and RME showed greater buccal tipping than SME. RME showed significant changes in other four measurements due to treatment: maxilla moved forward and mandible showed backward rotation and, at transversal level both skeletal and dentoalveolar showed significant changes due to maxillary expansion. SME showed significant dentoalveolar changes due to maxillary expansion. Only intermolar angle showed significant difference between the two modalities of maxillary expansion with greater buccal tipping for RME. Also, RME produced skeletal maxillary expansion and SME did not. Both maxillary expansion modalities were efficient to promote transversal gain at dentoalveolar level. Sagittal and vertical measurements did not show differences between groups, but RME promoted a forward movement of the maxilla and backward rotation of the mandible.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 23%
Student > Postgraduate 21 19%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 5%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 32 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Psychology 1 <1%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 <1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 37 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 November 2017.
All research outputs
#10,737,958
of 12,109,122 outputs
Outputs from Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
#133
of 211 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,134
of 285,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,109,122 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 211 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,174 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.