Question · asked by 1 review
Four-point expansion appliance (Hyrax) vs Two-point expansion appliance: Molar expansion
- Population
- Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or both), or other syndrome associated with craniofacial anomalies (included studies were children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years)
- Intervention
- Four-point expansion appliance (Hyrax)
- Comparison
- Two-point expansion appliance
- Outcome
- Molar expansion
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Four-point expansion appliance (Hyrax) vs Two-point expansion appliance Molar expansion · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or… · 3 months after completion of expansion Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes | Lamparski 2003: not reported by group; 'no significant differences were found' | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
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 |
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.