The effect of maxillary protraction, with or without rapid palatal expansion, on airway dimensions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

dc.contributor.authorAdobes Martín, Milagros
dc.contributor.authorLipani, Erica
dc.contributor.authorAlvarado Lorenzo, Alfonso
dc.contributor.authorBernés Martínez, Laura
dc.contributor.authorAiuto, Riccardo
dc.contributor.authorDioguardi, Mario
dc.contributor.authorRe, D.
dc.contributor.authorPaglia, L.
dc.contributor.authorGarcovich, Daniele
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-22T15:48:46Z
dc.date.available2022-04-22T15:48:46Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.description.abstractAim: The use of maxillary protraction appliances (MPAs) and Facemask (FM), with or without a rapid maxillary expansion (RME), have become a routine orthopaedic treatment procedure for the treatment of Class III in growing individuals; several authors have suggested that maxillary protraction could have a positive impact on airway dimensions. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of maxillary protraction appliances (MPAs), with or without a rapid maxillary expansion (RME), on airway dimensions in children in mixed or early permanent dentition. Materials and methods: An electronic search was performed on PubMed, Medline, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE and the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe until November 30th, 2019. The Newcastle-Ottawa (NOS) scale was used to assess the studies' quality. Review Manager 5.3 (provided by the Cochrane Collaboration) was used to synthesize the effects on airway dimensions. Results: After full text assessment, 8 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis. NOS scores ranged 6 to 9 indicating high quality. The effects of two therapeutic protocols were compared, treatment with MPAs only (113 subjects treated - 65 controls) and the treatment with MPAs + RME (137 subjects treated- 87 controls). The MPAs only treatment group displayed a significantly increase in nasopharyngeal airway dimension at PNS-AD1 (random: mean difference, 1.39 mm, 95% CI, 0.32 mm, 2.47 mm, p= 0.01) and at PNS-AD2 (random: mean difference, 1.70 mm, 95% CI, 1.14 mm, 2.26 mm, p= 0.00001). No statistically significant changes were found post treatment in MPAs + RME treatment groups at PNS-AD1 (P= 0.15), PNS-AD2 (P= 0.17), McNamara's upper pharynx (MPAs + RME P= 0.05, MPAs P= 0.99) and McNamara lower pharynx (MPAs + RME P= 0.25, MPAs P= 0.40). Conclusion: MPAs only treatment can increase the pharyngeal thickness after treatment both at PNS-A1 and PNS-AD2. MPA+ RME had no effect on sagittal widths compared with controls, but the effect on the transverse dimension could not be assessed.spa
dc.description.filiationUEVspa
dc.description.impact2.231 JCR (2020) Q2, 62/129 Pediatricsspa
dc.description.impact0.698 SJR (2020) Q2, 37/141 Dentistry (miscellaneous)spa
dc.description.impactNo data IDR 2020spa
dc.description.sponsorshipSin financiaciónspa
dc.identifier.citationMartín, M. A., Lipani, E., Lorenzo, A. A., Martínez, L. B., Aiuto, R., Dioguardi, M., Re, D., Paglia, L., & Garcovich, D. (2020). The effect of maxillary protraction, with or without rapid palatal expansion, on airway dimensions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, 21(4), 262-270. https://doi.org/10.23804/ejpd.2020.21.04.2spa
dc.identifier.doi10.23804/ejpd.2020.21.04.2
dc.identifier.issn1591-996X
dc.identifier.issn2035-648X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11268/11113
dc.language.isoengspa
dc.peerreviewedSispa
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.accessRightsopen accessspa
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subject.otherMaxilarspa
dc.subject.otherTécnica de expansión palatinaspa
dc.subject.unescoOdontologíaspa
dc.subject.unescoAnálisis documentalspa
dc.titleThe effect of maxillary protraction, with or without rapid palatal expansion, on airway dimensions: A systematic review and meta-analysisspa
dc.typejournal articlespa
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files