Comparison of Frenotomy Techniques for the Treatment of Ankyloglossia in Children: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of conventional (CF), laser (LF), and Z-plasty (ZF) frenotomies for the treatment of ankyloglossia in the pediatric population. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search of PUBMED, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases was performed. REVIEW METHODS: Relevant articles were independently assessed by 2 reviewers according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Thirty-five articles assessing CF (27 articles), LF (4 articles), ZF (3 articles), and/or rhomboid plasty frenotomy (1 article) were included. A high level of outcome heterogeneity prevented pooling of data. All 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were of low quality. Both CF (5 articles with 589 patients) and LF (2 articles with 78 patients) were independently shown to reduce maternal nipple pain on a visual analog or numeric rating scale. There were reports of improvement with breastfeeding outcomes as assessed on validated assessment tools for 88% (7/8) of CF articles (588 patients) and 2 LF articles (78 patients). ZF improved breastfeeding outcomes on subjective maternal reports (1 article with 18 infants) only. One RCT with a high risk of bias concluded greater speech articulation improvements with ZF compared to CF. Only minor adverse events were reported for all frenotomy techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Current literature does not demonstrate a clear advantage for one frenotomy technique when managing children with ankyloglossia. Recommendations for future research are provided to overcome the methodological shortcomings in the literature. We conclude that all frenotomy techniques are safe and effective for treating symptomatic ankyloglossia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".