ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Four-year follow-up on maxillary arch outcomes with presurgical infant orthopedics in unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effects of different presurgical infant orthopedic (PSIO) modalities on maxillary arch morphology in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) at 4 years following cheiloplasty. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, 48 children with UCLP were included in four groups (n = 12 each): Modified Grayson's NAM, Dynacleft nasal elevator, aligner-based NAM with Dynacleft nasal elevator, and no-PSIO control. Digital maxillary models obtained at 4 years of age were analyzed for arch width, depth, length, arch form, vertical segment position, and segmental contact/collapse. Inter- and intraexaminer reliability were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Intergroup comparisons were performed using one-way ANOVA and chi-square tests (α = 0.05).
resultsIntraclass correlation coefficients demonstrated good to excellent reliability, with ICC values ranging from 0.73 to 0.96. No statistically significant differences were found among the four groups for arch width, arch depth, arch length, arch form, vertical position of the lesser segment, or segmental contact/collapse (p > 0.05). Mean values across all transverse, sagittal, and vertical parameters were comparable, with no consistent pattern favoring any PSIO modality.
conclusionAt 4 years of age following primary cheiloplasty, no statistically significant differences in maxillary arch morphology were detected among the PSIO modalities and the no-PSIO group. Within the limitations of this retrospective cohort and its sample size, these findings do not demonstrate a detectable difference in the evaluated maxillary arch parameters among the four groups at 4 years of age. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: PSIO may provide early presurgical benefits, but no detectable differences in the evaluated maxillary arch parameters were observed among the four groups at 4 years of age in this cohort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42640358What 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.