Can different osteotomies have an influence on surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to systematically review the randomized and non-randomized clinical trials (RCT; nRCT) concerning the different available osteotomies for surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion (SARME): pterygomaxillary disjunction (SARME + PD vs SARME-PD) and segmental Le Fort I osteotomy (2-piece vs 3-piece). Outcomes focused on skeletal, dental, upper airway changes, complications, and relapse. Two authors investigated five databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science) until August 2023. The Cochrane Collaboration Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used for the quality assessment of the included RCTs and nRCTs, respectively. A total of 554 articles were retrieved and after duplicates removing and full-text reading, 40 studies were included. Two RCTs showed a low risk of bias, one an unclear risk and one a high risk. Among the non-RCTs, 15 studies showed a good quality, while 21 exhibited a fair quality score. SARME + PD resulted in more homogeneous posterior bone expansion, with minimal dental effects. No difference between 2-piece and 3-piece in asymmetric expansion was observed, although 3SO showed 1-2 mm of more transverse increase. The oropharynx minimum cross-sectional area, the nasopharynx and the oropharynx volume were greater in SARME + PD. Both dental and bone relapse can occur but no differences between the groups were observed. All osteotomies guaranteed a correction of transverse maxillary deficiency. Lower side effects were described in SARME + PD. Two-piece and 3-piece segmental Le Fort I osteotomies did not show any differences in the symmetry and amount of expansion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".