## 3 Results
### Characteristics of the Studies
All the studies recorded baseline measurements, called T0 or T1, before expansion. Seven articles evaluated patients for 6 months after expansion [13; 24; 26; 27; 28; 23], two articles evaluated patients for 7 months [13; 25], and one article did not specify the assessment time after expansion [29]. The evaluation of the suture by the authors was performed by various methods: two authors evaluated the suture in the coronal view [15; 27], seven authors evaluated the suture in the axial view [13; 15; 16; 23; 24; 25; 29], and one author evaluated the suture in the front view [26]. The assessment of the risk of bias in the included studies is presented in Table 4. Of the ten studies included in this review, one was classified as \"good\" [26], indicating a low risk of bias, eight studies were classified as \"fair\" [15; 16; 23; 24; 25; 27; 28; 29], indicating a moderate risk of bias, and one article was rated \"poor\", presenting a high risk of bias [13]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{25.6 pt} p{25.6 pt} p{25.6 pt} p{25.6 pt} p{25.6 pt} p{25.6 pt} p{25.6 pt} p{25.6 pt} p{25.6 pt} p{25.6 pt} p{25.6 pt}} \hline \hline
**Criteria** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** \\
**2017** & **2018** & **2018** & **2020** & **2025** & **2010** & **2013** & **2022** & **2013** & **2022** & **2012** & **2011** & **2015** & **2016** & **2014** \\ \hline
1. Was the study question or objective clearly stated? & YES & YES & YES & YES & YES & YES & YES & YES & YES & YES & YES \\
2. Were eligibility/selection criteria for the study population prescribed clearly described? & NO & YES & NO & NO & YES & NO & YES & NO & NO & NO \\
3. Were the participants in the study study representative of eligible for the tests/active/intervention in the general or clinical population of interest? & NO & YES & NO & NO & YES & NO & YES & NO & NO & NO \\
4. Were all eligible participants that met the prescribed entry criteria enrolled? & NA & NA & NA & NA & NA & NA & NA & NA & NA & NA \\
5. Was the sample size sufficiently large to provide confidence in the findings? & NO & YES & YES & NO & YES & YES & NO & NO & NO \\
6. Was the test/service/intervention clearly described and access the study population? & YES & NO & YES & YES & YES & YES & YES & YES & YES & YES \\
7. Were the outcome measures prespecified, clearly defined, valid, reliable, and assessed consistently across all study participants? & YES & YES & YES & CD & YES & YES & YES & YES & YES & YES \\
8. Was the loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less? & NR & NR & NR & NR & NR & NR & NR & NR & NR & NR \\
9. Did the statistical methods examine changes in outcome measures from before to after the intervention? Were statistical tests performed by provided \(p\)-values for the pre-to-post changes? & Fair & Fair & Fair & Poor & Good & Fair & Fair & Fair & Fair & Fair \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Assessment of the risk of bias in the included studies. Among the ten articles selected, seven studies did not report clear eligibility criteria [13; 15; 16; 23; 24; 25; 28], and in the 10 included articles, it was not possible to determine whether all eligible participants who met the pre-specified entry criteria were included. Four authors described sample calculations or analyses of the power of the study a posteriori [25; 26; 27; 28], and one study had a sample of more than 50 participants [29].