Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy): Maxillary advancement (midfacial hard tissue change; Subspinale A-point)
It is very uncertain whether maxillary distraction osteogenesis changes maxillary advancement (midfacial hard tissue change; Subspinale… compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy) (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy) Maxillary advancement (midfacial hard tissue change; Subspinale A-point) · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or… · 2 years It is very uncertain whether maxillary distraction osteogenesis changes maxillary advancement (midfacial hard tissue change; Subspinale… 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 | MD 4.40 [0.24, 8.56] | 1 study · 39 participants | Very low |
Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy) Maxillary advancement (midfacial hard tissue change; Subspinale A-point) · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or… · 2 years It is very uncertain whether maxillary distraction osteogenesis changes maxillary advancement (midfacial hard tissue change; Subspinale… compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy) (very low certainty). Maxillary distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery for cleft lip and palate patients (2016) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD010403.PUB2, superseded | MD 4.40 [0.24, 8.56] | 1 study · 39 participants | Very low |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 | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.