ReviewJournal of orthodontic science2022
Bone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP): A review.
Review in Journal of orthodontic science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison Between Skeletally-Anchored and Conventional Maxillary Protraction in Growing Class ΙΙΙ Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical Outcomes of Skeletal Anchorage Versus Conventional Anchorage in the Class III Orthopaedic Treatment in Growing Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2025Article
- Assessment of Stress Distribution and Displacement in the Craniofacial Complex between Facemask Therapy and Bone Anchored Maxillary Protraction (BAMP): A 3D Finite Element Study.F1000Research · 2025Article
- Bone-anchored maxillary protraction versus conventional orthopedic treatment for Class III malocclusion in children under 12 years: A systematic review.Journal of orthodontic science · 2025Review
- Mapping the evolving trend of research on Class III malocclusion: a bibliometric analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Review
- Comparison of different maxillary advancement protocols in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a finite element analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- A Review of Orthodontic Considerations before and after Alveolar Bone Grafting in Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate.Acta medica Philippina · 2024Review
- Maxillary Protraction: A Bibliometric Analysis.International dental journal · 2023Article
- Finite element analysis of sagittal screw expander appliance in the treatment of anterior maxillary hypoplasia.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionProtraction therapy for maxillary deficiency in the treatment of skeletal class III malocclusion involves the use of facemask. Conventionally facemask has been anchored to the maxillary dentition, which is responsible for some of the counter-productive effects of facemask therapy including backward and downward rotation of the chin, increase in the lower anterior facial height, proclination of maxillary incisors, retroclination of mandibular incisors apart from mesialization of maxillary molars with extrusion and decreased overbite.
aimThe aim of this article is to highlight the nuances of Bone-Anchored Maxillary Protraction (BAMP) including a literature review, which is comprehensive and narrative and comparing the different techniques involved such as type 1 BAMP versus type 2 BAMP and BAMP versus facemask. MATERIALS AND
methodsA computerized search was performed in electronic databases such as PubMed, PubMed Central, Cochrane, Embase, DOAJ, and Google scholar using key words such as "bone-anchored maxillary protraction" and "BAMP." The search was confined to articles in English published till March 2021. Forty-seven case-controlled, cross-sectional, retrospective and prospective studies, as well as systematic reviews and meta-analysis were included in this article, which were limited to human subjects. A hand search of the reference lists of the included articles was also carried out to include missed out articles.
conclusionTo overcome these drawbacks, BAMP was introduced, which causes both maxillary protraction, restraint of mandibular growth with minimal dentoalveolar changes. BAMP is used widely nowadays in the treatment of skeletal class III malocclusion.
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.