Rapid maxillary expansion vs slow maxillary expansion in patients with cleft lip and/or palate : a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Author
- Jonathan Luyten (UGent) , Noëmi De Roo (UGent) , Jeroen Christiaens, Leonie Van Overberghe, Liesbeth Temmerman (UGent) and Guy De Pauw (UGent)
- Organization
- 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. (Angle Orthod. 2022;93:95-103.)
- Keywords
- Orthodontics, Cleft lip and palate, Expansion
Downloads
-
published.pdf
- full text (Published version)
- |
- open access
- |
- |
- 647.55 KB
Citation
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication: http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-01GSD2T4BG9J0GJGHG902PE4QE
- MLA
- Luyten, Jonathan, et al. “Rapid Maxillary Expansion vs Slow Maxillary Expansion in Patients with Cleft Lip and/or Palate : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, vol. 93, no. 1, The Angle Orthodontist (EH Angle Education & Research Foundation), 2022, pp. 95–103, doi:10.2319/030122-188.1.
- APA
- Luyten, J., De Roo, N., Christiaens, J., Van Overberghe, L., Temmerman, L., & De Pauw, G. (2022). Rapid maxillary expansion vs slow maxillary expansion in patients with cleft lip and/or palate : a systematic review and meta-analysis. ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 93(1), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.2319/030122-188.1
- Chicago author-date
- Luyten, Jonathan, Noëmi De Roo, Jeroen Christiaens, Leonie Van Overberghe, Liesbeth Temmerman, and Guy De Pauw. 2022. “Rapid Maxillary Expansion vs Slow Maxillary Expansion in Patients with Cleft Lip and/or Palate : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” ANGLE ORTHODONTIST 93 (1): 95–103. https://doi.org/10.2319/030122-188.1.
- Chicago author-date (all authors)
- Luyten, Jonathan, Noëmi De Roo, Jeroen Christiaens, Leonie Van Overberghe, Liesbeth Temmerman, and Guy De Pauw. 2022. “Rapid Maxillary Expansion vs Slow Maxillary Expansion in Patients with Cleft Lip and/or Palate : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” ANGLE ORTHODONTIST 93 (1): 95–103. doi:10.2319/030122-188.1.
- Vancouver
- 1.Luyten J, De Roo N, Christiaens J, Van Overberghe L, Temmerman L, De Pauw G. Rapid maxillary expansion vs slow maxillary expansion in patients with cleft lip and/or palate : a systematic review and meta-analysis. ANGLE ORTHODONTIST. 2022;93(1):95–103.
- IEEE
- [1]J. Luyten, N. De Roo, J. Christiaens, L. Van Overberghe, L. Temmerman, and G. De Pauw, “Rapid maxillary expansion vs slow maxillary expansion in patients with cleft lip and/or palate : a systematic review and meta-analysis,” ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 95–103, 2022.
@article{01GSD2T4BG9J0GJGHG902PE4QE, 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. (Angle Orthod. 2022;93:95-103.)}}, author = {{Luyten, Jonathan and De Roo, Noëmi and Christiaens, Jeroen and Van Overberghe, Leonie and Temmerman, Liesbeth and De Pauw, Guy}}, issn = {{0003-3219}}, journal = {{ANGLE ORTHODONTIST}}, keywords = {{Orthodontics,Cleft lip and palate,Expansion}}, language = {{eng}}, number = {{1}}, pages = {{95--103}}, publisher = {{The Angle Orthodontist (EH Angle Education & Research Foundation)}}, title = {{Rapid maxillary expansion vs slow maxillary expansion in patients with cleft lip and/or palate : a systematic review and meta-analysis}}, url = {{http://doi.org/10.2319/030122-188.1}}, volume = {{93}}, year = {{2022}}, }
- Altmetric
- View in Altmetric
- Web of Science
- Times cited: