ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2024
Effects of bone anchored maxillary protraction on patients with unilateral cleft lip/palate or isolated cleft palate and hypoplastic maxilla: a 6-year follow-up case control study.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2024. 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.
- Maxillary protraction anchored on miniplates versus miniscrews: three-dimensional dentoskeletal comparison.European journal of orthodontics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP) treatment and longterm stability in growing cleft lip and palate and isolated cleft palate (CLP/CP) patients with mild maxillary hypoplasia and to compare maxillary growth patterns of BAMP-treated patients to matched control CLP/CP patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsTen patients with CLP/CP were treated with BAMP; they were compared to the maxillary growth pattern of 10 age-matched cleft control patients with no maxillary protraction treatment, who later received surgical Le Fort I maxillary advancement after the growth period. The assessment of maxillary growth and the occlusion started at mean 8 years of age and continued until mean 18 years of age.
resultsThe use of BAMP orthopedic traction changed the growth pattern of mild hypoplastic maxilla toward a more anterior direction and advanced the face even above the level of Le Fort lll with only a minor effect on dentoalveolar units. The correction of occlusion and facial convexity were stable in the long term.
conclusionsThe using BAMP may improve the position of the maxilla relative to the anterior cranial base for the correction of mild maxillary hypoplasia in adolescent patients with CLP/CP. The achieved results are rather stable in the long term.
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.