Evidence Hub

Bone neoformation at the distraction site following surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion: a systematic review

Tuur De Pus, N. Radi, Viktor Feyen, H. Vercruysse, E. van De Casteele, L. Thierens

Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery, 2026

147 participants

Abstract

Surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion induces bone neoformation at the distraction site during the treatment of maxillary transverse deficiency. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate and summarize the effect of surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion on bone neoformation at the midpalatal distraction site, with emphasis on bone maturation and morphology. A systematic search was performed across PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to June 2026. Selection criteria included randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case-control studies evaluating bone neoformation following surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion using tooth- or bone-borne expanders. Eight studies, comprising one randomized controlled trial and seven cohorts involving 147 patients aged 15-59 years, were included. Bone density was evaluated via optical density or Hounsfield units across four regions along the midpalatal suture over follow-up periods of three to ten months. Results indicated that bone density reached its minimum at the start of the retention period, followed by a gradual increase; however, density generally failed to return to baseline values by the final follow-up. Risk of bias was rated as 'Good' for two studies and 'Fair' for six. In conclusion, bone density decreases across all maxillary regions following SARME and typically does not recover to baseline levels within…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 147 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free