Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Summary of findings table according to the GRADE approach for the comparison of bone-borne versus tooth-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

  Anticipated absolute effectsa (95% CI)
Outcome
Trials (patients)
Tooth-borne RMEb Bone-borne RME Difference Quality of the
evidence (GRADE)c
What happens
Suture opening at 1st premolar
Post-retention
40 patients (1 trial)
1.3 mm 2.3 mm more
(1.7 to 2.9 more)
moderated
due to imprecision
Probably greater sutural opening with bone-borne RME
Suture opening at 1st molar
Post-retention
40 patients (1 trial)
1.1 mm 2.0 mm more
(1.4 to 2.6 more)
⃝ moderated
due to imprecision
Probably greater sutural opening with bone-borne RME
Buccal tipping of 1st premolar
Post-retention
73 patients (2 trials)
3.9° 2.4° less
(9.5 less to 4.8 more)
⃝⃝⃝ very lowd, e, f
due to bias, inconsistency, imprecision
Little to no difference in premolar buccal tipping
Buccal tipping of 1st molar
Post-retention
73 patients (2 trials)
5.7° 1.9° less
(9.5 less to 5.7 more)
⃝⃝⃝ very lowd, e, f
due to bias, inconsistency, imprecision
Little to no difference in molar buccal tipping
Nasal cavity width at 1st premolar/orbita$
Post-retention
81 patients (2 trials)
1.8 mm$ 0.7 mm more(0.1 less to 1.4 more) ⃝⃝ lowd, e
due to bias, imprecision
Little to no difference in nasal cavity width
Root resorption volume at 1st molar
Post-retention
41 patients (1 trial)
49.3 mm3 17.8 mm3 less
(46.0 to 10.4 more)
⃝⃝ lowd, e
due to bias, imprecision
Little to no difference in root resorption volume
  1. Bone-borne versus tooth-borne rapid maxillary expansion
  2. Population and intervention: adolescent or adult patients with skeletal maxillary deficit
  3. Settings: university clinics, private practices, and clinics (Canada, Netherlands, Sweden, Turkey)
  4. CI confidence interval, GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation
  5. aThe basis for the risk in the control group (e.g., the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI)
  6. bResponse in the control group is based on average response of included trials
  7. cStarts from “high,” due to the inclusion of randomized studies
  8. dDowngraded by one point due to imprecision, as the optimal information size was judged not to be met
  9. eDowngraded by one point for risk of bias (lack of blind outcome assessment)
  10. fDowngraded one for inconsistency (I2 > 75%)
  11. $Standardized mean difference was used for the meta-analysis and was back-translated to natural units based on the data from the Celenk-Koca 2018 [30] trial