Semi-rapid maxillary expansion vs Rapid maxillary expansion (splint-type bonded appliance): Molar expansion
- Population
- Children and adults with a posterior crossbite without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate, or other syndrome associated with craniofacial anomalies (all included studies were children aged 5 to 16 years)
- Intervention
- Semi-rapid maxillary expansion
- Comparison
- Rapid maxillary expansion (splint-type bonded appliance)
- Outcome
- Molar expansion
It is very uncertain whether semi-rapid maxillary expansion (splint-type bonded appliance) changes molar expansion compared with rapid maxillary expansion (splint-type bonded appliance) (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Semi-rapid maxillary expansion (splint-type bonded appliance) vs Rapid maxillary expansion (splint-type bonded appliance) Molar expansion · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate, or… It is very uncertain whether semi-rapid maxillary expansion (splint-type bonded appliance) changes molar expansion compared with rapid maxillary expansion (splint-type bonded appliance) (very low certainty). Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites (2014) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD000979.PUB2, superseded | MD 0.60 [-0.55, 1.75] | 1 study · 35 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2021-04 | Not listed | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Semi-rapid maxillary expansion vs Rapid maxillary expansion · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal… · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.