ReviewJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Evaluation of pharyngeal airway changes & velopharyngeal function following Le-fort I osteotomy in cleft lip and palate patients- a systematic review & meta analysis.
Review in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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.
- Morphological and dimensional variations of the pterygoid hamulus: A CBCT-based cross-sectional study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- CBCT analysis of pharyngeal airway dimensions in cleft lip and palate: A systematic review and meta-analysis.National journal of maxillofacial surgeryReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Le-Fort I osteotomy is commonly performed in cleft lip and palate patients to correct maxillary discrepancies, potentially influencing pharyngeal airway dimensions and velopharyngeal function. Thus, the review aims to evaluate the effects on pharyngeal airway and velopharyngeal function following Le-Fort I osteotomy in cleft lip and palate patients. Method: This systematic review followed the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). A comprehensive electronic search in databases of Scopus, EBSCO, PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar was performed to identify studies published from inception to August 2024 with language restricted to English. The critical appraisal using NIH quality assessment tool and data extraction processes were carried out independently by two reviewers. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the effects of Le-Fort I on nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal and hypopharyngeal airway depth before and after the intervention. Quality was evaluated using GRADE. Results: Twelve articles were included in this review. Le-Fort I maxillary advancement significantly increases pharyngeal airway dimensions, particularly in the nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal regions, with most studies reporting improved airway space postoperatively. However, velopharyngeal function outcomes were variable: some patients experienced transient increases in nasalance or hypernasality, while others showed no significant adverse effects. Notably, preoperative hypernasality may predict postoperative velopharyngeal insufficiency. Conclusion: Le-Fort I maxillary advancement increases pharyngeal airway volume; particularly in the nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal regions; thereby improving breathing function, especially during sleep. However, the degree of airway expansion varies depending on the extent of surgery and preoperative airway conditions. While the procedure often enhances velopharyngeal closure by improving anatomical alignment and muscle coordination, it also carries a risk of worsening velopharyngeal insufficiency if the maxilla is advanced beyond a certain limit, which differs among individuals.
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.