ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Comparison of different maxillary advancement protocols in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a finite element analysis.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A finite element study on three maxillary protraction devices for treating maxillary sagittal hypoplasia at different levels of bone fusion.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- The three-dimensional finite element model of unilateral complete cleft lip and palate and mechanical analysis of the oral surfaces.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the stress distributions and possible amount of movement in the maxillofacial region resulting from different maxillary advancement protocols in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. MATERIALS AND
methodsA unilateral cleft lip and palate model (CLP model) with Goslon score 4 was created for finite element analysis. Three different protocols were compared: Group 1: usage of a face mask with elastics placed at a 30? angle to the occlusal plane over a conventional acrylic plate; Group 2: usage of a face mask with elastics placed at a 30? angle to the occlusal plane over miniplates placed in the infrazygomatic crest region; Group 3: usage of elastic from the menton plate placed in the mandible to the infrazygomatic plates in the maxilla.
resultsDental effects were greater in the maxillary protraction protocol with a face mask over a conventional acrylic plate (Von Misses Stress Values; Group 1?=?cleft side:0.076, non-cleft side:0.077; Group 2?=?cleft side:0.004, non-cleft side: 0.003; Group 3?=?cleft side:0.0025; non-cleft side:0.0015), whereas skeletal effects were greater in maxillary protraction protocols with face mask using skeletal anchorage (Von Misses Stress Values; Group 1:0.008; Group 2:0.02; Group 3:0.0025). The maximum amount of counterclockwise rotation of the maxilla as a result of protraction was observed in traditional acrylic plate face mask protocol, and the minimum amount was observed by using elastics between infrazygomatic plates and menton plate.
conclusionsIn individuals with unilateral cleft lip and palate with Goslon score 4, it was observed that the skeletally anchored face mask caused more skeletal impact and displacement than both the traditional acrylic plate face mask model and the pure skeletally supported maxillary protraction model. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When planning maxillary protraction treatment in patients with cleft lip and palate, it should be considered that more movement in the sagittal plane might be expected on the cleft side than the non-cleft side, and miniplate and screws on the cleft side are exposed to more stress when using infrazygomatic plates as skeletal anchorage.
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.