0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Long-term maxillary three dimensional changes following maxillary protraction with or without expansion: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background/purpose

          Maxillary protraction with or without expansion appears to be an effective orthopedic treatment in skeletal class III growing patients, but the long-term effect on maxilla changes is less clear. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate long-term three dimensional skeletal effects on maxilla through face mask (FM) with or without rapid maxillary expansion (RME) in skeletal CIII growing patients.

          Materials and methods

          We searched database including PubMed, Science Direct, Embase and Web of Science through Feb 2020. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials or cohort studies recruiting growing patients who received maxillary protraction and/or expansion and comparing the treatment groups with untreated controls. The follow-up periods were more than 3 years. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tools (RoB2.0 and ROBINS-I). GRADE was used to qualify the evidence.

          Results

          This meta-analysis included 6 studies comprising 327 participants in total. No statistically significant changes were observed on the degree of Sella-Nasion-A point (SNA) in the treated groups when compared with the untreated controls. However, significant increase on maxillary rotation degree (mean difference: 8.20, 95% CI = 6.87–9.53, p < 0.001) and maxillary base width (mean difference: 2.27, 95% CI = 1.39–3.15, p < 0.001) in the treated groups, if compared with untreated controls.

          Conclusion

          Our results indicated that FM and FM/RME treatments might not be long-term effective on correcting maxillary anteroposterior hypoplasia in growing patients. Additionally, more long-term studies are still necessary to further assess its skeletal benefits on maxilla in vertical and transverse dimension.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

            The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

              Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Dent Sci
                J Dent Sci
                Journal of Dental Sciences
                Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China
                1991-7902
                2213-8862
                02 July 2020
                January 2021
                02 July 2020
                : 16
                : 1
                : 168-177
                Affiliations
                [a ]Division of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Department of Dentistry, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan
                [b ]Graduate Institute of Craniofacial and Dental Science, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
                [c ]Department of Dentistry, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan
                [d ]Faculty of Dentistry, Chang Gung Craniofacial Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Taipei, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan
                [e ]Division of Hematology and Oncology Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Faculty of Dentistry, Chang Gung Craniofacial Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Taipei, 199 Dunhua N. Rd., Taipei, 105, Taiwan. Fax: +886 2 27135211-3300. ortholab88@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                S1991-7902(20)30140-9
                10.1016/j.jds.2020.06.016
                7770293
                33384794
                8d44ece9-35a6-4989-a9cf-9bb418353502
                © 2020 Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 4 May 2020
                : 11 June 2020
                Categories
                Original Article

                maxillary protraction,maxillary expansion,long-term,meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article