Fast search with keyword It provides easy access to our database
The effect of maxillary protraction, with or without rapid palatal expansion, on airway dimensions: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Pubblication date: 31/2020
Authors: M. Adobes Martin1, E. Lipani1 , A. Alvarado Lorenzo2, L. Bernes Martinez1, R. Aiuto3, M. Dioguardi4, D. Re3, L. Paglia5, D. Garcovich1
Institution: 1Department of Dentistry, Universidad Europea de Valencia,
2Department of Dentistry, Universidad de Salamanca,
3Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, Italy - Istituto Stomatologico Italiano
4Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine,
University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
5Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Istituto Stomatologico Italiano, Milan, Italy
Publication: European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry
Title: The effect of maxillary protraction, with or without rapid palatal expansion, on airway dimensions: A systematic review and meta-analysis
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.
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.