Question · asked by 1 review
Haas expander anchored on deciduous second molars vs Haas expander anchored on permanent first molars: Canine expansion
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Haas expander anchored on deciduous second molars vs Haas expander anchored on permanent first molars Canine expansion · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or… · after 5-month retention period Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes | Ugolini 2015: deciduous 4.2 mm vs permanent 3.3 mm; P<0.01 (more stable anterior expansion with deciduous anchorage) | 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 | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.