SynthesisOrthodontics & craniofacial research2025
Effects of Maxillary Protraction Techniques on Maxillofacial, Dental, and Soft Tissue Outcomes in Patients With Non-Syndromic Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Orthodontics & craniofacial research, 2025. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo perform a quantitative assessment and best-evidence synthesis of maxillary protraction techniques for unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate (UCLAP), incorporating all available studies regardless of methodological quality. MATERIALS AND
methodsStudies on growing non-syndromic UCLAP patients requiring maxillary protraction-against treated or untreated comparator groups-were identified across databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, Ovid MEDLINE, LILACS, Cochrane Library, and grey literature until April 23, 2025. Risk of bias for included studies was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-randomised Studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A random effects model was applied using RevMan for quantitative analysis.
resultsThe search identified 1,892 articles, of which 36 met the inclusion criteria, categorised under four protraction methods: bone-anchored, skeletally-anchored facemask, facemask (FM) only, and intraoral springs, with or without expansion. Quantitative synthesis was feasible only for the FM group. Compared to no-protraction UCLAP (NP-UCLAP), Protraction group (P-UCLAP) showed a significant short-term increase in ANB angle (MD = 4.34; 95% CI: 3.65-5.03; p < 0.00001; I
conclusionFM therapy shows short-term benefits from low-quality studies for UCLAP maxillofacial growth and future studies might not be necessary as supported by sequential analysis. Evidence for skeletally anchored methods and addition of expansion to any protraction method remains weak and rigorous, long-term studies are needed.
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.