Effectiveness of varying alternating rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions (Alt-RAMEC) durations on maxillary protraction in noncleft Class III malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Hamza Parvez Siddiqui , Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman , Saraa Angel , Karthik Sennimalai , Madhanraj Selvaraj
{"title":"Effectiveness of varying alternating rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions (Alt-RAMEC) durations on maxillary protraction in noncleft Class III malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Hamza Parvez Siddiqui , Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman , Saraa Angel , Karthik Sennimalai , Madhanraj Selvaraj","doi":"10.1016/j.ejwf.2025.10.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>This systematic review aims to assess whether extending Alt-RAMEC (Alternating Rapid Maxillary Expansions and Constrictions) protocols from four to nine weeks yields superior skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue outcomes in growing noncleft Class III patients when compared to conventional rapid maxillary expansion (RME).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic literature search was conducted across the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Ovid MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and LILACS databases over the past 20 years up to 7 January 2025. Clinical trials comparing cephalometrically conventional RME with Alt-RAMEC-assisted maxillary protraction in growing noncleft Class III subjects were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) and the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2) tool. A random-effects meta-analysis using RevMan was conducted for quantitative synthesis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Out of 1847 articles screened, 24 studies were included for qualitative synthesis and 11 studies for meta-analysis. The five-week Alt-RAMEC protocol showed a statistically significant improvement in the ANB angle compared to RME (mean difference 1.37°; 95% confidence intervals 0.85–1.89; <em>P</em> < 0.01; c<sup>2</sup> = 2.14; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). However, both 7-week and 9-week protocols demonstrated no significant advantage over conventional RME/facemask.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Only the five-week Alt-RAMEC protocol offers a statistically significant but clinically negligible improvement in maxillofacial, dental, and soft-tissue outcomes over conventional RME-assisted protraction in managing growing noncleft Class III malocclusion using a Hyrax-type expander. However, this is supported by only moderate to weak evidence.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":43456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists","volume":"15 2","pages":"Pages 95-109"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212443825008112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
This systematic review aims to assess whether extending Alt-RAMEC (Alternating Rapid Maxillary Expansions and Constrictions) protocols from four to nine weeks yields superior skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue outcomes in growing noncleft Class III patients when compared to conventional rapid maxillary expansion (RME).
Methods
A systematic literature search was conducted across the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Ovid MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and LILACS databases over the past 20 years up to 7 January 2025. Clinical trials comparing cephalometrically conventional RME with Alt-RAMEC-assisted maxillary protraction in growing noncleft Class III subjects were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) and the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2) tool. A random-effects meta-analysis using RevMan was conducted for quantitative synthesis.
Results
Out of 1847 articles screened, 24 studies were included for qualitative synthesis and 11 studies for meta-analysis. The five-week Alt-RAMEC protocol showed a statistically significant improvement in the ANB angle compared to RME (mean difference 1.37°; 95% confidence intervals 0.85–1.89; P < 0.01; c2 = 2.14; I2 = 0%). However, both 7-week and 9-week protocols demonstrated no significant advantage over conventional RME/facemask.
Conclusions
Only the five-week Alt-RAMEC protocol offers a statistically significant but clinically negligible improvement in maxillofacial, dental, and soft-tissue outcomes over conventional RME-assisted protraction in managing growing noncleft Class III malocclusion using a Hyrax-type expander. However, this is supported by only moderate to weak evidence.
背景:本系统综述旨在评估与传统的快速上颌扩张(RME)相比,将Alt-RAMEC(交替快速上颌扩张和收缩)方案延长4至9周是否能在生长中的非唇裂III类患者中获得更好的骨骼、牙齿和软组织预后。方法:系统检索Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central)、PubMed、Scopus、Embase、Web of Science、谷歌Scholar、Ovid MEDLINE、EBSCOhost和LILACS数据库过去20年至2025年1月7日的文献。包括在生长中的非唇裂III类受试者中比较头测法常规RME与alt - ramec辅助上颌牵引的临床试验。采用非随机研究方法学指数(methodology Index for non - random Studies,简称minor)和Cochrane Risk of bias (RoB 2)工具评估偏倚风险。采用RevMan随机效应meta分析进行定量综合。结果:在筛选的1847篇文章中,24篇研究被纳入定性综合,11篇研究被纳入meta分析。与RME相比,5周Alt-RAMEC方案在ANB角度上有统计学意义的改善(平均差1.37°;95%可信区间0.85-1.89;P < 0.01; c2 = 2.14; I2 = 0%)。然而,7周和9周的治疗方案与传统的RME/面罩相比没有明显的优势。结论:只有5周的Alt-RAMEC方案提供了统计学上显著的改善,但在临床上可以忽略,在使用hyrax型扩张器治疗生长中的非裂型III类错颌时,与传统的rme辅助牵引相比,在颌面部、牙齿和软组织方面的改善可以忽略。然而,只有中等到微弱的证据支持这一观点。