Rapid maxillary expansion vs slow maxillary expansion in patients with cleft lip and/or palate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the dentoalveolar outcomes of slow maxillary expansion (SME) and rapid maxillary expansion (RME) used for maxillary expansion before secondary alveolar bone grafting in patients with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P). Secondarily, the advantages and disadvantages of SME vs RME were reviewed.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted up to November 2021, including Medline (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0) and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS I) tool. Overall quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool.

RESULTS

Of 4007 records, five studies met the inclusion criteria. The randomized control trial (RCT) had a low risk of bias, the non-RCTs presented with a moderate risk of bias. Arch width and perimeter increased significantly with both SME and RME treatments. No difference in the increase in palatal depth was found. The meta-analysis showed a greater anterior-to-posterior expansion ratio for the Quad Helix (QH) appliance. The results for dental tipping were not conclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

SME and RME promote equal posterior expansion in cleft patients. The anterior differential expansion is greater with SME (QH appliance). No clear evidence exists concerning the amount of dental adverse effects of SME and RME in cleft patients.