Are there benefits from using bone-borne maxillary expansion instead of tooth-borne maxillary expansion? A systematic review with meta-analysis

Krüsi, Marietta; Eliades, Theodore; Papageorgiou, Spyridon N.

doi:10.1186/s40510-019-0261-5

Progress in Orthodontics

Table 3 Results of random effects meta-analyses performed from randomized trials comparing tooth-borne rapid maxillary expansion with either bone-borne or hybrid (tooth-bone-borne) rapid maxillary expansion

From: Are there benefits from using bone-borne maxillary expansion instead of tooth-borne maxillary expansion? A systematic review with meta-analysis

Experimental	Timing	Outcome	Trials	MD	95% CI	P	I² (95% CI)	τ² (95% CI)	95% PrI
Bone-borne	Pst-Exp	Intermolar width (crown)	2	− 0.09	− 0.34, 0.16	0.46	0% (0%, 98%)	0 (0, 8.14)	NC
Bone-borne	Pst-Exp	Inter-1st-premolar width (crown)	2	− 0.71	− 2.70, 1.27	0.48	91% (41%, 100%)	1.88 (0.12, 258.72)	NC
Bone-borne	Pst-Exp	Inclination 1st molar (left)	2	− 2.93	− 7.87, 2.01	0.25	83% (0%, NC)	10.59 (0, NC)	NC
Bone-borne	Pst-Exp	Inclination 1st molar (right)	2	− 1.47	− 3.90, 0.95	0.23	0% (0%, 98%)	0 (0, 189.07)	NC
Bone-borne	Pst-Exp	Inclination 1st premolar (left)	2	− 2.49	− 5.19, 0.22	0.07	60% (0%, 100%)	2.31 (0, 483.98)	NC
Bone-borne	Pst-Exp	Inclination 1st premolar (right)	2	− 4.05	− 5.97, − 2.13	< 0.001	0% (0%, 98%)	0 (0, 93.81)	NC
Bone-borne	Reten	Intermolar width (crown)	3	0.15	− 0.27, 0.56	0.49	0% (0%, 88%)	0 (0, 1.23)	− 2.54, 2.83
Bone-borne	Reten	Inter-1st-premolar width (crown)	3	− 0.66	− 1.90, 0.58	0.30	77% (0%, 99%)	0.88 (0, 22.64)	− 15.06, 13.74
Bone-borne	Reten	Inclination 1st molar (left)	2	− 1.89	− 9.48, 5.70	0.63	87% (10%, NC)	26.04 (0.45, NC)	NC
Bone-borne	Reten	Inclination 1st molar (right)	2	− 0.20	− 3.91, 3.51	0.92	59% (0%, 100%)	4.33 (0, 913.80)	NC
Bone-borne	Reten	Inclination 1st premolar (left)	2	− 2.38	− 9.53, 4.76	0.51	90% (31%, NC)	23.94 (1.24, NC)	NC
Bone-borne	Reten	Inclination 1st premolar (right)	2	− 0.77	− 3.02, 1.48	0.50	0% (0%, 98%)	0 (0, 154.35)	NC
Bone-borne	Reten	Nasal cavity width	2	*0.41	*− 0.03, 0.84	0.07	0% (0%, 99%)	0 (0, 7.60)	NC
Hybrid	Reten	Intercanine width (crown)	2	− 0.22	− 0.98, 0.55	0.58	36% (0%, 100%)	0.16 (0, 55.23)	NC
Hybrid	Reten	Intermolar width (crown)	2	0.18	− 0.40, 0.76	0.55	0% (0%, 98%)	0 (0, 28.03)	NC
Hybrid	Reten	Inter-1st-premolar width (crown)	2	− 1.96	− 6.18, 2.27	0.36	89% (27%, NC)	8.36 (0.38, NC)	NC
Hybrid	Reten	Inclination 1st molar (left)	2	− 1.29	− 3.61, 1.03	0.28	0% (0%, 99%)	0 (0, 341.30)	NC
Hybrid	Reten	Inclination 1st molar (right)	2	− 1.12	− 6.96, 4.72	0.71	66% (0%, NC)	11.75 (0, NC)	NC
Hybrid	Reten	Inclination 1st premolar (left)	2	− 3.97	− 7.08, − 0.86	0.01	49% (0%, 100%)	2.70 (0, 685.54)	NC
Hybrid	Reten	Inclination 1st premolar (right)	2	− 0.79	− 3.18, 1.60	0.52	0% (0%, 98%)	0 (0, 181.80)	NC

CI confidence interval, MD mean difference, NC non-calculable, PrI predictive interval, Pst-Exp post expansion, Reten post retention period (at least 3 months)
*Pertains to standardized mean difference, as two similar outcomes were pooled together: nasal cavity width at orbita and nasal cavity width at the 1st premolar

Back to article page