Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29429068›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral investigations2018

Stability of maxillary protraction therapy in children with Class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yifan Lin, Runzhi Guo, Liyu Hou, Zhen Fu, Weiran Li

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Bone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP): A review.Journal of orthodontic science · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Maxillary protraction in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate : Evaluation of soft and hard tissues using the Alt-RAMEC protocol.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Yifan LinDepartment of Orthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, No. 22 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Haidian District, Beijing, China.
Runzhi GuoDepartment of Orthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, No. 22 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Haidian District, Beijing, China.
Liyu HouDepartment of Orthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, No. 22 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Haidian District, Beijing, China.
Zhen FuDepartment of Orthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, No. 22 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Haidian District, Beijing, China.
Weiran LiDepartment of Orthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, No. 22 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Haidian District, Beijing, China. weiranli2003@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the stability of treatment effects of maxillary protraction therapy in Class III children. MATERIALS AND

methodsMultiple electronic databases were searched from 01/1996 to 10/2016. Randomized clinical trials, controlled clinical trials, and cohort studies with untreated Class III controls and a follow-up over 2 years were considered for inclusion. The methodological quality of the studies and publication bias were evaluated. Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of six variables (SNA, SNB, ANB, mandibular plane angle, overjet, and lower incisor angle) were calculated.

resultsTen studies were included in the qualitative analysis, and four studies were included in the quantitative analysis. Compared with the control group, after treatment, the treated group showed significant changes: SNA +1.79° (95% CI: 1.23, 2.34), SNB -1.16° (95% CI -2.08, -0.24), ANB +2.92° (95% CI 2.40, 3.44), mandibular plane angle +1.41° (95% CI 0.63, 2.20), overjet +3.94 mm (95% CI 2.17, 5.71) and lower incisor angle -3.07° (95% CI -4.92, -1.22). During follow-up, the changes in five variables reflected significant relapse. Overall, the treated group showed significant changes only in ANB +1.66° (95% CI 0.97, 2.35) and overjet +2.41 mm (95% CI 1.60, 3.23).

conclusionsMaxillary protraction can be a short-term effective therapy and might improve sagittal skeletal and dental relationships in the medium term. But some skeletal and dental variables showed significant relapse during the follow-up period. Long-term studies are still required to further evaluate its skeletal benefits. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The study evaluated the medium-term stability of skeletal and dental effects of maxillary protraction in Class III children and discussed whether the therapy can reduce the need for orthognathic surgery.

Indexed as

Extraoral Traction AppliancesChildHumansMalocclusion, Angle Class IIIMaxillofacial DevelopmentOrthodontics, CorrectiveClass III childrenMaxillary protraction therapyMedium-term stabilitySkeletal and dental changesSystematic review and meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID29429068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.