Question · asked by 1 review
Expansion plate with conventional expansion screw vs Expansion plate with spring-loaded expansion screw: Molar and canine 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
- Expansion plate with conventional expansion screw
- Comparison
- Expansion plate with spring-loaded expansion screw
- Outcome
- Molar and canine expansion
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Expansion plate with conventional expansion screw vs Expansion plate with spring-loaded expansion screw Molar and canine expansion · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or… Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes | Oshagh 2012: no significant differences in discomfort and arch size changes; results inadequately reported (no usable data) | 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.