Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Results of the meta-analysis on changes in soft tissues after rapid maxillary expansion

From: Facial soft tissue changes after nonsurgical rapid maxillary expansion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Outcome Studies Subjects Effect EstimateMD(Fixed, CI 95%)
A.Pre-expansion VS. postexpansion
 Nasal width 5 208 0.84 [0.33, 1.34] a
 Alar base width 4 188 0.71 [0.19, 1.23] a
 Nasal tip prominence 3 56 0.59 [−0.26, 1.44]
 Nasolabial angle 2 52 −0.06 [−4.36, 4.24]
 Upper lip thickness 2 38 −0.01 [− 0.82, 0.79]
 Basic upper lip thickness 2 38 0.28 [− 0.65, 1.22]
 Soft pogonion thickness 2 38 0.01 [−0.79, 0.81]
 upper lip to E line 3 72 0.11 [−0.65, 0.88]
 Lower lip to E line 3 72 0.75 [0.51, 0.99] a
 Height of nose 3 68 1.30 [−0.08, 2.67]
B.Pre-expansion VS. postretention
 Nasal width 6 232 0.87 [0.34, 1.41] a
 Alar base width 3 158 0.51 [−0.04, 1.06]
 Mouth width 2 59 1.84 [0.66, 3.02] a
 Upper philtrum width 2 45 0.74 [0.12, 1.36] a
 Nasal tip prominence 4 78 0.26 [−0.99, 1.51]
 Nasolabial angle 5 142 −0.88 [−2.96, 1.20]
 upper lip to E line 2 52 −0.11 [− 0.33, 0.11]
 Lower lip to E line 2 52 0.42 [0.17, 0.66] a
 Upper lip height 3 87 −0.38 [−1.17, 0.41]
 Lower lip height 2 59 0.48 [−0.47, 1.43]
 Lower face height 2 59 0.42 [−1.17, 2.01]
C.Postexpansion VS. postretention
 Nasal width 3 160 −0.13 [−0.70, 0.44]
 Alar base width 2 140 −0.20 [− 0.80, 0.39]
 Nasal tip prominence 2 38 0.19 [−1.25, 1.63]
 upper lip to E line 2 52 −0.25 [−1.27, 0.77]
 Lower lip to E line 2 52 −0.34 [− 0.57, − 0.11] a
  1. A. Pre-expansion versus post-expansion; B. Pre-expansion versus postretention; C. Postexpansion versus postretention. asignificant