ReviewCureus2026
Dentofacial Orthopaedics in Cleft Lip and Palate: A Comprehensive 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cleft lip and palate (CLP) is a congenital craniofacial anomaly characterised by disruption of the maxilla's form and growth, which involves both a defect in the bony structure and soft tissue that needs multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Dentofacial orthopaedic procedures are extraoral and intraoral forces used to move bone segments and shape and mould future development of the maxillofacial region from the neonatal stage to skeletal maturity. This narrative review summarises current orthopaedic techniques that are used before primary surgery, such as passive maxillary plates, active pin-retained appliances, and nasoalveolar moulding; during deciduous and mixed dentition stages, such as rapid maxillary expansion, protraction facemask therapy, and alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction; prior to and following alveolar bone grafting; and prior to and following orthognathic surgery in patients with established maxillary hypoplasia. Clinical evidence is critically evaluated with particular focus on treatment effectiveness, limits of treatment, skeletal and soft tissue outcomes, and clinical application in various stages of cleft rehabilitation. Presurgical orthopaedic procedures usually improve early nasolabial and alveolar form and may aid in surgical management, but it is unclear if skeletal effects are durable and if the skull shape of one procedure is more effective than the other. New technology, such as digitally designed and three-dimensional-printed moulding appliances, temporary skeletal anchorage for maxillary protraction, distraction, and tissue-engineering techniques, is increasing therapeutic options for patients with CLP. Randomised trials with well-designed multicentre randomised trials, standardised outcome measures, and longer follow-up are needed to assess the effectiveness of treatment and facilitate individual orthopaedic management in the future.
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.