Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy): Velopharyngeal function (complete velopharyngeal closure; deterioration/improvement)
- Population
- Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral or bilateral cleft lip and palate (involving the alveolar process); non-syndromic, requiring surgical correction of maxillary hypoplasia
- Intervention
- Maxillary distraction osteogenesis
- Comparison
- Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)
- Outcome
- Velopharyngeal function (complete velopharyngeal closure; deterioration/improvement)
It is very uncertain whether maxillary distraction osteogenesis changes velopharyngeal function (complete velopharyngeal closure;… compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy) (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy) Velopharyngeal function (complete velopharyngeal closure; deterioration/improvement) · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or… · 17 months (mean) It is very uncertain whether maxillary distraction osteogenesis changes velopharyngeal function (complete velopharyngeal closure;… compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy) (very low certainty). Maxillary distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery for cleft lip and palate patients (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 1.28 [0.65, 2.52] | 1 study · 21 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maxillary distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery for cleft lip and palate patients 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2018-05 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.