Author:
Luyten Jonathan,De Roo Noëmi M. C.,Christiaens Jeroen,Van Overberghe Leonie,Temmerman Liesbeth,De Pauw Guy A. M.
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Objectives
To compare the dentoalveolar outcomes of slow maxillary expansion (SME) and rapid maxillary expansion (RME) used for maxillary expansion before secondary alveolar bone grafting in patients with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P). Secondarily, the advantages and disadvantages of SME vs RME were reviewed.
Materials and Methods
A systematic search was conducted up to November 2021, including Medline (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0) and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS I) tool. Overall quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool.
Results
Of 4007 records, five studies met the inclusion criteria. The randomized control trial (RCT) had a low risk of bias, the non-RCTs presented with a moderate risk of bias. Arch width and perimeter increased significantly with both SME and RME treatments. No difference in the increase in palatal depth was found. The meta-analysis showed a greater anterior-to-posterior expansion ratio for the Quad Helix (QH) appliance. The results for dental tipping were not conclusive.
Conclusions
SME and RME promote equal posterior expansion in cleft patients. The anterior differential expansion is greater with SME (QH appliance). No clear evidence exists concerning the amount of dental adverse effects of SME and RME in cleft patients.
Publisher
The Angle Orthodontist (EH Angle Education & Research Foundation)
Reference22 articles.
1. Mossey
PA,
Catilla
E.
Global Registry and Database on Craniofacial Anomalies: Report of a WHO Registry Meeting on Craniofacial Anomalies
.
Geneva, Switzerland:
World Health Organization;2001.
2. Santiago
PE,
Schuster
LA,
Levy-Bercowski
D.
Management of the alveolar cleft.
Clin Plast Surg.
2014;
41(2):
219–
232.
doi:10.1016/j.cps.2014.01.001
3. Kaura
AS,
Srinivasa
DR,
Kasten
SJ.
Optimal timing of alveolar cleft bone grafting for maxillary clefts in the cleft palate population. Review.
J Craniofac Surg.
2018;
29(6):
1551–
1557.
doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000004680
4. Fahradyan
A,
Tsuha
M,
Wolfswinkel
EM,
Mitchell
KS,
Hammoudeh
JA,
Magee
W
3rd.
Optimal timing of secondary alveolar bone grafting: a literature review.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg.
2019;
77(4):
843–
849.
doi:10.1016/j.joms.2018.11.019
5. Murthy
AS,
Lehman
JA.
Evaluation of alveolar bone grafting: a survey of ACPA teams.
Cleft Palate Craniofac J.
2005;
42(1):
99–
101.
doi:10.1597/03-045.1
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献