MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391225577 · doi:10.1177/27325016231226300

Is Botox or Dermabond Superior in the Appearance of the Lip Scar After Primary Cleft Lip Repair and Revision? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4391225577 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul F. Martinez, Theresa K. Webster, Thomas A. Imahiyerobo

Bibliographic record

VenueFACE · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Sutures and Adhesives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineUpper lipDentistryOrthodonticsAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cleft lip scar formation is an inevitable consequence of cleft lip repair (CLR) and is exacerbated by the dynamic movement of the middle face. Various methods to correct or prevent these deformities have been described including silicone sheeting, surgical revisions, laser therapy, and more recently, Botulinum toxin-A (Botox) and Dermabond. This study aims to analyze and compare the impact of Botox versus Dermabond on scar appearance after CLR. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was performed on Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL using the following keywords: “Dermabond,” “botulinum toxin,” and “cleft lip.” Outcomes of interest were the rates of scar hypertrophy, scar width, Vancouver scar scale (VSS), visual analog scale (VAS), Hollander wound evaluation scale (HWES), and complications. Results: Nine studies were included of which 4 articles analyzed Botox and 5 analyzed Dermabond. Forest plots for scar width at the first and second time point supported the use of Botox to achieve a smaller scar width with P < .0001 (95% CI: −1.09 [−1.56 to −0.63] and 95% CI: −0.94 [−1.37 to −0.50], respectively). A significant increase in VAS was observed with Botox (95% CI: 1.66 [1.27-2.05], P value < .0001) and VSS was insignificant. Of the articles that analyzed Dermabond, scar appearance was comparable to the traditional suture closure group. There were no feeding complications for either intervention. Pooled forest plots for VAS comparing Botox and Dermabond supported the use of Botox with improved VAS (95% CI: 1.66 [1.27-2.05], P < .0001) compared to Dermabond (95% CI: 0.07 [ −0.48 to 0.61], P = .80). Conclusions: The current literature supports the use of Botox for scar improvement following CLR or revision. However, there is limited data to support Dermabond’s utility in improving scars in CLR, which highlights the need for further studies.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.032
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFACESame topicSurgical Sutures and AdhesivesFrench-language works237,207