ArticleBMC oral health2023
Three-dimensional comparison between the effects of mandibular advancement device and maxillomandibular advancement surgery on upper airway.
Article in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe efficacy of mandibular advancement devices (MAD) and maxillomandibular advancement (MMA) in improving upper airway (UA) patency has been described as being comparable to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) outcomes. However, no previous study has compared MAD and MMA treatment outcomes for the upper airway enlargement. This study aimed to evaluate three-dimensionally the UA changes and mandibular rotation in patients after MAD compared to MMA.
methodsThe sample consisted of 17 patients with treated with MAD and 17 patients treated with MMA matched by weight, height, body mass index. Cone-beam computed tomography from before and after both treatments were used to measure total UA, superior/inferior oropharynx volume and surface area; and mandibular rotation.
resultsBoth groups showed a significant increase in the superior oropharynx volume after the treatments (p = 0.003) and the MMA group showed greater increase (p = 0.010). No statistical difference was identified in the MAD group considering the inferior volume, while the MMA group showed a significantly gain (p = 0.010) and greater volume (p = 0.024). Both groups showed anterior mandibular displacement. However, the mandibular rotation were statistically different between the groups (p < 0.001). While the MAD group showed a clockwise rotation pattern (-3.97 ± 1.07 and - 4.08 ± 1.30), the MMA group demonstrated a counterclockwise (2.40 ± 3.43 and 3.41 ± 2.79). In the MAD group, the mandibular linear anterior displacement was correlated with superior [p = 0.002 (r=-0.697)] and inferior [p = 0.004 (r = 0.658)] oropharynx volume, suggesting that greater amounts of mandibular advancement are correlated to a decrease in the superior oropharynx and an increase in the inferior oropharynx. In the MMA group, the superior oropharynx volume was correlated to mandibular anteroposterior [p = 0.029 (r=-0.530)] and vertical displacement [p = 0.047 (r = 0.488)], indicating greater amounts of mandibular advancement may lead to a lowest gain in the superior oropharynx volume, while a great mandibular superior displacement is correlated with improvements in this region.
conclusionsThe MAD therapy led to a clockwise mandibular rotation, increasing the dimensions of the superior oropharynx; while a counterclockwise rotation with greater increases in all UA regions were showed in the MMA treatment.
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.