ArticleClinical oral investigations2023
Does cleft lip and palate affect the severity of malocclusion?
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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, 5 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 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the 3D anatomical features of unilateral (UCLP) and bilateral (BCLP) complete cleft lip and palate with those of skeletal Class III dentofacial deformities. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn total, 92 patients were divided into cleft and noncleft groups. The cleft group comprised 29 patients with UCLP and 17 patients with BCLP. The noncleft group comprised 46 patients with Class III dentofacial deformities. 3D anatomical landmarks were identified and the corresponding measurements were made on the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
resultsThe differences between the affected and unaffected sides of the patients with UCLP were nonsignificant. The differences between the patients with UCLP and BCLP were nonsignificant except for the SNA angle. Significant differences between the patients with clefts and Class III malocclusion were identified for the SNA, A-N perpendicular, and A-N Pog line, indicating that the maxillae of the patients in the cleft group were more retrognathic and micrognathic. Relative to the noncleft group patients, the cleft group patients had a significantly smaller ramus height.
conclusionThe affected and unaffected sides of the patients with UCLP did not exhibit significant differences. The maxillae of the patients with UCLP were significantly more retrognathic than those of the patients with BCLP. The maxillae and mandibles of the patients in the cleft group were more micrognathic and retropositioned relative to those of the noncleft Class III patients. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The maxillary and mandibular findings indicated greater deficiencies in the patients with UCLP or BCLP than in those with skeletal Class III malocclusion. Appropriate surgical design should be administered.
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.