Evidence Hub

Effect of maxillary advancement on speech and velopharyngeal function of patients with cleft palate: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

P. Sales, F. Costa, E. L. Cetira, P. G. Silva, A. F. Albuquerque, J. Leão

International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, 2020

205 participants · 25 citations

Abstract

This systematic review (SR) aimed to evaluate speech and velopharyngeal function (VPF) changes of patients with cleft palate (CLP) after maxillary advancement (MA) surgery. A two-phase PROSPERO-registered SR (CRD42019141370) was conducted following the PRISMA statements. Search strategies were developed for main databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, COCHRANE, LILACS, and EBSCOhost) and Grey literature information sources. The GRADE tool was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. From a total of 908 articles, 10 (205 men and 147 women; mean age ranging from 18.0 to 25.7 years) were selected for meta-analysis. Moderate to high risk of bias (Rob) was observed. The most common methods for outcomes evaluation were the Nasometer (speech) and nasoendoscopy (VPF). Speech changed from normal to hypernasal, and VPF worsening were reported in most studies. Comparing maxillary advancement interventions (osteogenic distraction versus Le Fort I), no statistically significant differences were found regarding benefit on speech and VPF. In summary, the effect of MA on speech and VPF remains controversial in CLP patients. The RoB, inconsistencies, and imprecisions severely affected the overall quality of evidence. Further adequately delineated clinical studies are necessary to investigate the potential effect of MA interventions on speech and VPF in CLP patients.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, 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: 205 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