Comparison of long-term skeletal stability following maxillary advancement using rigid external distraction in growing and non-growing patients with cleft lip and palate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Does the Rigid External Distraction Device Alter Maxillary Pitch in Cleft Maxillary Distraction?

The rigid external distraction (RED) device is reported to have the ability to three-dimensionally reposition the maxilla. The purpose of this study is to assess the ability of RED to intentionally alter the maxillary pitch.

Retrospective cohort study.

Institutional practice.

A retrospective chart review was completed over the past 12 years and a total of 50 patients met the inclusion criteria.

Cephalometric changes and alteration in palatal plane angle.

Cephalometric analysis of standardized landmarks was completed on calibrated, standardized lateral cephalograms. Pre-distraction and post-consolidation variables were compared via a two-tailed paired t-test.

The mean age at surgery of 12.2 ± 3.2 years. Through distraction osteogenesis (DO), the maxilla was moved anteriorly with a mean distraction distance of 8.4 ± 4.8 mm. The mean change in the angles sella-nasion-A-point angle (SNA), sella-nasion-B-point angle (SNB), and A-point-nasion-B-point angle (ANB) were 10.2 ± 4.8, 0.9 ± 2.7, and 9.3 ± 4.1, respectively. The mean change in the palatal plane angle was -4.4 ± 3.7. The mean change in the vertical position of the anterior nasal spine (ANS) and posterior nasal spine (PNS) in relation to the Frankfort horizontal (FH) were -2.0 ± 4.1 mm and 1.7 ± 3.8 mm, respectively.

This study documents short-term findings of RED in a large cleft lip and palate (CLP) population. Despite positioning of distraction eyelets superior to the theoretical center of resistance, a counterclockwise (CCW) rotation of the palatal plane occurred. This suggests that adjunctive methods of vector control should be considered if clockwise (CW) rotation of the palatal plane is intended with the RED device.

Evidence Mapping and Quality Analysis of Systematic Reviews on Various Aspects Related to Cleft Lip and Palate

BACKGROUND

Management of cleft lip and palate is interdisciplinary. An evidence-mapping approach was envisaged to highlight the existing gaps in this field, using only the highest level of evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct evidence mapping and quality analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to any aspect of cleft lip and palate.

SEARCH METHODS

The cleft lip and palate field was divided into 9 domains and 50 subdomains and a method of categorization of systematic reviews was established. A comprehensive search strategy was carried out in seven databases along with the search of gray literature and references of included articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Systematic reviews related to any aspect of cleft lip and palate, conducted by a minimum of two reviewers, with a comprehensive search strategy and adequate quality analysis were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A self-designed, pre-piloted data-extraction sheet was used to collect information that was analyzed through an expert group discussion. Quality analysis was performed using ROBIS-I, AMSTAR 2, and the PRISMA checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 144 systematic reviews published between 2008 and 2022 were included. The largest number of these could be categorized in the therapeutic domain (n = 58). A total of 27% of the studies were categorized as inconclusive, 40% as partially conclusive, and 33% as conclusive. As per ROBIS-I, 77% of reviews had high risk of bias while 58% were graded as critically low in quality as per AMSTAR 2. The majority of systematic reviews showed low reporting errors.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of systematic reviews related to cleft lip and palate relate to therapeutic and prognostic domains and show high risk of bias and critically low quality regardless of the source journal. The results of this paper might serve as a starting point encouraging authors to carry out high-quality research where evidence is lacking.

REGISTRATION

A multidisciplinary expert-group formulated an a priori protocol, registered in Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/NQDV2).