Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32342120›Full record

ArticleJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2020

Maxillary protraction in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate : Evaluation of soft and hard tissues using the Alt-RAMEC protocol.

Ege Dogan, Ozlem Seckin

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ege DoganDepartment of Orthodontics, Private Clinic, Ali Cetinkaya Bulvari Servet Apartmani no:14 kat:1 daire:1 Alsancak, Izmir, Turkey. dtegedogan@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4443-1772
Ozlem SeckinDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ege University, Bornova, Izmir, Turkey.
Ege University · TRİzmir University of Economics · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the hard and soft tissue effects and differences of the Alt-RAMEC protocol to the facemask and conventional facemask protocols in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate.

methodsThis prospective study was carried out with 30 patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate with skeletal and dental class III malocclusions who were referred to a university department of orthodontics. The patients were evaluated with the cervical vertebral maturation method and divided into two groups, each consisting of 15 patients. The patients in group I (mean age 10.00 ± 0.73 years) were treated according to conventional facemask protocol, and the patients in group II (mean age 10.07 ± 2.43 years) were treated according to the Alt-RAMEC protocol before facemask application. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were evaluated by using the Dolphin Imaging Software version 11.7. The skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue differences and treatment times were evaluated.

resultsGroup II demonstrated a 5.73° increase in SNA, which was statistically significant, while this increase was 3.13° in group I (p < 0.001). Results for Co‑A and A‑PTV showed a significant increase for group II only (group I: 1.02 mm, 1.06 mm, group II: 3.02 mm, 2.21 mm; p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively). In addition, group II presented significant increase for the values of ANB, N‑A-Pg, SN/MP, Wits, U1-SN, U1-L1, U1-PTV, U1-FHP, U6-PTV, U6-FHP, overjet, Ss-PTV, UL-PTV and UL‑S line (p < 0.001). The treatment mean times were 7.3 months in group I and 4.7 months in group II (p < 0.01).

conclusionApplying the facemask after having followed the Alt-RAMEC protocol induced more skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue changes in comparison to the conventional facemask protocol in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate.

Indexed as

Cleft LipCleft PalateMalocclusion, Angle Class IIICephalometryChildExtraoral Traction AppliancesHumansMaxillaPalatal Expansion TechniqueProspective StudiesAngle class III malocclusionFacial growthMaxillaOrofacial cleftRapid maxillary expansion

Identifiers

PMID32342120
OpenAlexW3018931666

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.