ArticleBMC oral health2022
Transverse differences between cleft lip and palate and non-cleft palate with skeletal Class III malocclusion using buccolingual inclination: a cone-beam computed tomography retrospective study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond Sagittal and Vertical: Transverse Constriction as a Feature of the Collapsed Arch in Angle Class II Post-Extraction Retreatment Patients: A Retrospective CBCT Pilot Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Orthodontic camouflage treatment for a patient with bilateral cleft lip and palate, bilateral crossbite, and microdontic maxillary lateral incisors.European journal of medical research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences between buccolingual inclination (BI) of maxillary posterior teeth in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP) and non-cleft palate with skeletal Class III malocclusion. We propose a method of maxillary expansion which is more suitable for patients with CLP.
methodsFor this retrospective study, 40 patients with CLP and 21 patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion were selected. The CLP group was divided into the unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) groups. The BI of the maxillary first premolar (BI4), maxillary second premolar (BI5) and first molar (BI6) were measured using cone-beam computed tomography, and the differences between them were compared and analyzed by Student's t-test.
resultsThere were significant differences between cleft side BI4 and non-cleft side BI4 in the UCLP group, BI5 in the BCLP group, BI4 and BI5 in all CLP groups and the skeletal Class III malocclusion group. BI6 was similar across all three groups.
conclusionsThe premolars of patients with CLP do not exhibit the same regularity as those with Class III malocclusion; this may be related to surgical scarring of the cleft palate. Greater attention should be paid to the correction of BI in the maxillary expansion of patients with CLP.
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.