Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

48 questions · 48 findings · 5 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 14 · 29.2%GRADE not reported 23 · 47.9%Very low 9 · 18.8%Low 2 · 4.2%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Long-term skeletal relapse/stability (horizontal movement of A-point) · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…

It is very uncertain whether maxillary distraction osteogenesis changes long-term skeletal relapse/stability (horizontal movement of A-point) compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Speech: resonance (hypernasality) (deterioration/improvement) · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…

It is very uncertain whether maxillary distraction osteogenesis changes speech: resonance (hypernasality) (deterioration/improvement) compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Clinical morbidities (adverse effects) · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…
1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Psychological status: social self-esteem (Culture-Free Self-Esteem Inventory subset); also general self-esteem and Social Avoidance and Distress Scale · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…
1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Midfacial soft tissue changes (facial profile landmarks: pronasale, subnasale, stomion superius, labrale superius) · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis showed no clear difference in midfacial soft tissue changes (facial profile landmarks: pronasale,… compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

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 complete unilateral…

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).

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Psychological status: satisfaction with life (Satisfaction With Life Scale, SWLS) · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…

It is very uncertain whether maxillary distraction osteogenesis changes psychological status: satisfaction with life (Satisfaction With Life… compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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 complete unilateral…

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).

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Speech: nasal emission · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis showed no clear difference in speech: nasal emission compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Open surgical exposure vs Closed surgical exposure

Gum health: midbuccal gingival recession (mm) · People with maxillary palatally displaced (impacted) canines, unilateral or bilateral (children/adolescents; mean ages 14.2 to 17.5 years)

Open surgical exposure showed no clear difference in gum health: midbuccal gingival recession (mm) compared with closed surgical exposure; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Open surgical exposure vs Closed surgical exposure

Probing pocket depth · People with maxillary palatally displaced (impacted) canines, unilateral or bilateral (children/adolescents; mean ages 14.2 to 17.5 years)

Open surgical exposure showed no clear difference in gum health: periodontal probing depth compared with closed surgical exposure; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Open surgical exposure vs Closed surgical exposure

Complications or adverse effects · People with maxillary palatally displaced (impacted) canines, unilateral or bilateral (children/adolescents; mean ages 14.2 to 17.5 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Open surgical exposure vs Closed surgical exposure

Pain intensity (0‐10cm visual analogue scale) · People with maxillary palatally displaced (impacted) canines, unilateral or bilateral (children/adolescents; mean ages 14.2 to 17.5 years)

Open surgical exposure showed no clear difference in patient response: pain/soreness score (visual analogue scale 1 to 10) compared with closed surgical exposure; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Open surgical exposure vs Closed surgical exposure

Treatment time: time from surgical exposure to eruption/bonding a bracket · People with maxillary palatally displaced (impacted) canines, unilateral or bilateral (children/adolescents; mean ages 14.2 to 17.5 years)

Open surgical exposure led to lower treatment time: time from surgical exposure to eruption/bonding a… compared with closed surgical exposure; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Open surgical exposure vs Closed surgical exposure

Discomfort/pain · People with maxillary palatally displaced (impacted) canines, unilateral or bilateral (children/adolescents; mean ages 14.2 to 17.5 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Open surgical exposure vs Closed surgical exposure

Aesthetics: canine rated as abnormal position in the dental arch · People with maxillary palatally displaced (impacted) canines, unilateral or bilateral (children/adolescents; mean ages 14.2 to 17.5 years)

Open surgical exposure showed no clear difference in aesthetics: canine rated as abnormal position in the dental arch compared with closed surgical exposure; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Open surgical exposure vs Closed surgical exposure

Gum health: bleeding on probing (Papilla Bleeding Index) · People with maxillary palatally displaced (impacted) canines, unilateral or bilateral (children/adolescents; mean ages 14.2 to 17.5 years)

Open surgical exposure showed no clear difference in gum health: bleeding on probing (Papilla Bleeding Index) compared with closed surgical exposure; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Open surgical exposure vs Closed surgical exposure

Gum health: gingival recession (six-point probing) · People with maxillary palatally displaced (impacted) canines, unilateral or bilateral (children/adolescents; mean ages 14.2 to 17.5 years)

Open surgical exposure showed no clear difference in gum health: gingival recession (six-point probing) compared with closed surgical exposure; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Open surgical exposure vs Closed surgical exposure

Patient response: total discomfort score (pain, difficulty eating, brushing, speaking, bad taste) · People with maxillary palatally displaced (impacted) canines, unilateral or bilateral (children/adolescents; mean ages 14.2 to 17.5 years)

Open surgical exposure showed no clear difference in patient response: total discomfort score (pain, difficulty eating,… compared with closed surgical exposure; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Open surgical exposure vs Closed surgical exposure

Aesthetics: canine rated as abnormal tooth inclination · People with maxillary palatally displaced (impacted) canines, unilateral or bilateral (children/adolescents; mean ages 14.2 to 17.5 years)

Open surgical exposure showed no clear difference in aesthetics: canine rated as abnormal tooth inclination compared with closed surgical exposure; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review