ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Alveolar Bone Grafting in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: Impact of Timing on Palatal Shape.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of palatal shape on dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Alveolar bone grafting (ABG) is a critical surgical intervention in patients with a cleft of the alveolus, aimed at reconstructing the alveolar ridge to facilitate proper eruption, periodontal support, and alignment of adjacent permanent teeth. The optimal timing for ABG remains debated, with late secondary ABG between the ages of 9 and 11 being widely adopted. This study compared the palatal shapes of 28 children at a mean age of 9.5 years (SD = 0.7) who underwent early secondary ABG at a mean age of 2.1 years (SD = 0.6) or 33 children at a mean age of 10.8 years (SD = 1.5) who underwent late secondary ABG at a mean age of 8.6 years (SD = 1.3) to 60 non-cleft controls at a mean age of 8.6 years (SD = 1.2). The palatal shapes were captured with 239 landmarks digitized on the palate on a digital model. Utilizing geometric morphometric methods, i.e., generalized Procrustes superimpositions, principal component analysis, and permutation tests, we assessed the impact of ABG timing on palatal morphology. The first five principal components (PCs) explained 64.1% of the total shape variability: PC1 = 26.1%; PC2 = 12%; PC3 = 11.9%; PC4 = 7.8%; and PC5 = 6.4%. The Procrustes distance between both cleft groups and the control group was more than twice as large as the Procrustes distance between the early ABG and late ABG groups. Nonetheless, all intergroup differences were statistically significant. Our findings suggest that early ABG has a limited negative effect on palatal shape, providing comparable outcomes to late ABG. The study highlights the potential suitability of early ABG, challenging conventional practices and encouraging further exploration into its long-term effects on maxillary growth.
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.