Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30306334›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2019

Bone-anchored maxillary protraction in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate and Class III malocclusion.

Yijin Ren, Ralph Steegman, Arjan Dieters, Johan Jansma, Harry Stamatakis

Open access · hybridAbstract readControlled Clinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Bone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP): A review.Journal of orthodontic science · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yijin RenDepartment of Orthodontics, W.J. Kolff Institute, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, BB72 300001, Hanzeplein 1, 9700RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. y.ren@umcg.nl.
Ralph SteegmanDepartment of Orthodontics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Arjan DietersDepartment of Orthodontics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Johan JansmaDepartment of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Harry StamatakisDepartment of Orthodontics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University of Groningen · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Models, DentalCephalometryChildCleft LipCleft PalateFemaleHumansMaleMalocclusion, Angle Class IIIMaxillaOrthodontic Anchorage ProceduresPalatal Expansion TechniqueProspective StudiesBone anchoredCBCTClass III malocclusionCleftColor mappingMaxillofacial protractionOrthodonticsSuperimposition

Identifiers

PMID30306334
OpenAlexW2898030431

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.