ArticleClinical oral investigations2019
Bone-anchored maxillary protraction in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate and Class III malocclusion.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Maxillary Protraction Techniques on Maxillofacial, Dental, and Soft Tissue Outcomes in Patients With Non-Syndromic Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2025Pooled it
- Three-Dimensional Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)-Derived Soft Tissue Changes in Patients with Unilateral Cleft Lip, Alveolus, and Palate with Midfacial Deficiency after 1.5 Years of Bone-Anchored Maxillary Protraction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Impact of digital orthodontics on maxillary protraction with implants in children with skeletal class III: A systematic review and meta-analysis.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Review
- Maxillofacial growth changes after maxillary protraction therapy in children with class III malocclusion: a dual control group retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- A Review of Orthodontic Considerations before and after Alveolar Bone Grafting in Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate.Acta medica Philippina · 2024Review
- Article
- Bone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP): A review.Journal of orthodontic science · 2022Review
- Correlation between gingival phenotype in the aesthetic zone and craniofacial profile-a CBCT-based study.Clinical oral investigations · 2021Article
- Skeletal Changes in Growing Cleft Patients with Class III Malocclusion Treated with Bone Anchored Maxillary Protraction-A 3.5-Year Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Cephalometric Predictors of Future need for Orthognathic Surgery in Korean Patients with Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Despite Long-term Use of Facemask with Miniplate.Korean journal of orthodontics · 2021Article
- Bone-anchored maxillary protraction in unilateral cleft lip and palate: a cephalometric appraisal.European journal of orthodontics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis prospective controlled study evaluated the effect of bone-anchored maxillary protraction therapy in cleft children with Class III malocclusion using CBCT-derived 3D surface models. MATERIALS AND SUBJECTS: Eighteen cleft patients between 10 and 12 years old were included. Intermaxillary elastics were worn after the placement of four zygoma bone plates for 18 months. Uniquely, three age-matched untreated groups including both cleft subjects and non-cleft subjects with Class III malocclusion served as controls. Profile photos and CBCT scans for each patient were taken before (T0) and 18 months after the protraction (T1). 3D measurements were made on CBCT surface models from the treatment group using tomographic color mapping method. Cephalometric measurements were made on lateral cephalogram reconstructed from the CBCT scans and were compared with those obtained from the control groups.
resultsTwo thirds of the treatment subjects showed improved lip projection towards more convex facial profile. The most significant skeletal changes on 3D surface models were observed at the zygomatic regions (mean 1.5-mm forward, downward, and outward displacement) and at the maxillary complex (mean 1.5-mm forward displacement). Compared with the control groups, the treatment subjects showed significant increase in the SNA and ANB angles, increased Wits appraisal, a more forward movement of point A and overjet improvement (p < 0.05).
conclusionsBAMP in cleft patients gives a significant forward displacement of the zygomaxillairy complex in favor of the Class III treatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This treatment method shows clearly favorable outcome in cleft patients after 1.5 years of BAMP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.