SynthesisBMC oral health2023
Airway dimensional changes following bone anchored maxillary protraction: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe introduction of skeletal anchorage utilized for maxillary protraction with a face mask or class III elastics has been developed for the management of class III malocclusions with minimal dental effect. The objective of the present review was to evaluate the current evidence regarding airway dimensional changes following bone-anchored maxillary protraction. A search was conducted by two authors (S.A & B.A) in the following databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar and Open Grey; besides a hand search in references of selected articles and developing a search alert in electronic databases. Selection criteria comprised randomized as well as prospective clinical trials evaluating airway dimensional changes following bone-anchored maxillary protraction. Relevant data were extracted after studies retrieval and selection. The risk of bias was thereafter evaluated using the revised RoB 2 tool for randomized clinical trials and the ROBINS-I tool was used for non-randomized clinical trials. The quality of studies was assessed using the modified Jadad score. After examining (eligibility) full-text articles, four clinical trials were ultimately included. These studies evaluated the airway dimensional changes, following bone-anchored maxillary protraction in comparison to different control study groups. Based on the available evidence, all the bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices used in the eligible studies in the present systematic review resulted in an improvement in the airway dimensions. However, due to the few numbers of studies available and the guarded evidence due to the low quality of evidence of three out of four included articles, there is no strong evidence to support a significant increase in the airway dimensions following bone-anchored maxillary protraction. Therefore, there is a need for more randomized controlled clinical trials with similar bone-anchored protraction devices and similar assessment methods for more valid comparisons, excluding any confounding factors, on airway dimensional changes.
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.