Department of Dentistry, Universidad Europea de Valencia, Spain.
Department of Dentistry, Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2020 Dec;21(4):262-270. doi: 10.23804/ejpd.2020.21.04.2.
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.
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.
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).
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.
上颌骨牵引器(MPA)和面具(FM)的使用,无论是否伴有快速上颌扩展(RME),已成为治疗生长中个体 III 类错牙合的常规矫形治疗方法;有几位作者认为上颌牵引可能对上气道尺寸有积极影响。本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是评估混合或早期恒牙期儿童使用上颌骨牵引器(MPA),无论是否伴有快速上颌扩展(RME),对上气道尺寸的疗效。
对 PubMed、Medline、Scopus、The Cochrane Library、EMBASE 和欧洲灰色文献信息系统进行电子检索,检索时间截至 2019 年 11 月 30 日。使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华(NOS)量表评估研究质量。使用 Review Manager 5.3(由 Cochrane 协作网提供)对气道尺寸的影响进行综合分析。
经过全文评估,8 项研究被纳入定性和定量综合分析。NOS 评分范围为 6 至 9 分,表明质量较高。比较了两种治疗方案的效果,仅使用 MPA 治疗(113 例治疗-65 例对照)和使用 MPA+RME 治疗(137 例治疗-87 例对照)。仅使用 MPA 治疗组在 PNS-AD1(随机:平均差异,1.39 毫米,95%CI,0.32 毫米,2.47 毫米,p=0.01)和 PNS-AD2(随机:平均差异,1.70 毫米,95%CI,1.14 毫米,2.26 毫米,p=0.00001)时,鼻咽气道尺寸有显著增加。在 MPA+RME 治疗组中,治疗后 PNS-AD1(P=0.15)、PNS-AD2(P=0.17)、McNamara 上咽(MPAs+RME P=0.05,MPAs P=0.99)和 McNamara 下咽(MPAs+RME P=0.25,MPAs P=0.40)处未发现统计学上的显著变化。
仅使用 MPA 治疗可在 PNS-A1 和 PNS-AD2 治疗后增加咽壁厚度。与对照组相比,MPA+RME 对矢状宽度没有影响,但无法评估其对横向尺寸的影响。