ReviewCureus2026
Post-treatment Stability of Maxillary Arch Dimensions in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cleft lip and palate (CLP) are structural anomalies resulting from the failure of craniofacial prominences to fuse during embryonic development. Orthodontic treatment seeks to address these conditions by improving dentofacial balance and restoring oral function, but long-term post-treatment stability continues to pose a challenge. This systematic review included a literature search of four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL) to identify observational evidence on the stability of orthodontic treatment in CLP. Six studies, comprising three cohort studies and three case reports, were included, totaling 130 participants (110 individuals with CLP, including 54 males and 56 females, and 20 non-cleft controls). Cohort evidence suggested that maxillary arch form may influence post-treatment stability, with symmetrical arches demonstrating minimal relapse, whereas arches with anterior collapse or combined segment collapse showed a higher tendency toward relapse. Across cohort studies, maxillary arch dimensions generally decreased during follow-up regardless of retainer or prosthesis use. Fixed partial dentures appeared to offer better stability for anterior measurements than implant-supported prostheses, while greater instability was consistently observed in the molar region. Case reports described appropriate orthodontic approaches in complex cleft presentations, with variable reporting of adverse events, and also reported stable transplanted teeth without evidence of ankylosis or root resorption. Overall, stability outcomes may be influenced by the retention strategy, arch form severity, and prosthesis type and duration. Further well-designed observational studies with standardized stability outcomes and consistent follow-up intervals are needed to identify the best approaches to enhance long-term stability.
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.