36 patients with unilateral or bilateral cross bite treated with hyrax expanders fabricated through three distinct workflows: fully conventional (physical impression + manual fabrication), hybrid (physical impression + CAD/CAM fabrication), and fully digital (intraoral scanning + CAD/CAM fabrication). To evaluate and compare the clinical fit, workflow efficiency, and patient/clinician satisfaction of palatal expanders fabricated using traditional, hybrid digital, and fully digital workflows.
Eligibility
Sex
ALL
Min age
8 Months
Max age
13 Months
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion Criteria:
* • Aged between 8 and 13 years with transverse maxillary deficiency ( with unilateral or bilateral crossbite ,with or without anterior cross bite)
* Indicated for tooth-borne maxillary expansion
* Good oral hygiene and cooperative behavior
* No prior orthodontic treatment
Exclusion Criteria:
* • Craniofacial anomalies or syndromes
* Requirement for surgically assisted expansion
* Poor oral hygiene or high caries index
Primary outcome measure(s)
Clinical Fit and accuracy of expander — Immediately after appliance insertion For the clinical fit of the palatal expander at delivery, a 5-point Likert scale could be used by the clinician as follows:
Score Description
1. Very poor fit - Significant rocking or instability; requires remake
2. Poor fit - Major adjustment required (e.g., soldering, bending)
3. Acceptable fit - Minor chairside adjustments needed
4. Good fit - Minimal adjustment required
5. Excellent fit - No adjustment needed, passive and accurate seating
This page summarises publicly available registry data for informational purposes — not medical advice. Eligibility is determined by each study team; patients should discuss participation with their clinician.
We use cookies to analyse site traffic and improve your experience. With your consent, we may also use cookies for advertising. You can change your choice at any time.