ReviewNational journal of maxillofacial surgery
CBCT analysis of pharyngeal airway dimensions in cleft lip and palate: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in National journal of maxillofacial surgery. 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
To systematically evaluate and synthesize the available evidence on pharyngeal airway dimensions in individuals with cleft lip and palate using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and to quantitatively compare airway volumes between cleft and noncleft populations where feasible. An electronic literature search was conducted across multiple databases to identify CBCT-based case-control studies assessing pharyngeal airway dimensions in individuals with cleft lip and palate. Eligible studies were screened according to predefined inclusion criteria. Data extraction and qualitative synthesis were performed for all included studies. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis was conducted when three or more studies reported comparable outcome variables; pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model. Twenty-six case-control studies were included, all demonstrating low risk of bias (NOS score ≥7). Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and limited availability of comparable data, meta-analysis was feasible for only a few outcomes. Pooled analysis showed a significant reduction in total pharyngeal airway volume in individuals with unilateral cleft lip and palate compared with controls, while no significant difference was observed in nasopharyngeal airway volume. Qualitative synthesis indicated that oropharyngeal airway volume was the most consistently reduced region, particularly in patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate. Pharyngeal airway morphology in individuals with cleft lip and palate is region-specific and phenotype-dependent, with consistent reductions observed in total and oropharyngeal airway volumes, while nasopharyngeal airway dimensions remain variable. The limited feasibility of meta-analysis highlights the need for standardized CBCT airway assessment protocols, age-stratified analyses, and phenotype-specific reporting in future studies.
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.