The effect of maxillary protraction, with or without rapid palatal expansion, on airway dimensions: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim 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.\n\t\t\t\t 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.\n\t\t\t\t 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). \n\t\t\t\t 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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".