Dataset Information

Are there benefits from using bone-borne maxillary expansion instead of tooth-borne maxillary expansion? A systematic review with meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The aim of the current systematic review was to compare the clinical effects of bone-borne or hybrid tooth-bone-borne rapid maxillary expansion (RME) with conventional tooth-borne RME in the treatment of maxillary deficiency.

Methods

Nine databases were searched up to September 2018 for randomized clinical trials comparing bone-borne or hybrid tooth-bone-borne RME to conventional tooth-borne RME in patients of any age or sex. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment with the Cochrane tool, random effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by assessment of the quality of evidence with GRADE.

Results

A total of 12 papers on 6 unique trials with 264 patients (42.4% male; average age 12.3 years) were finally included. Limited evidence indicated that bone-borne RME was associated with greater suture opening at the first molar post-retention (1 trial; MD 2.0 mm; 95% CI 1.4 to 2.6 mm; moderate evidence quality) compared to tooth-borne RME, while no significant differences could be found regarding tooth inclination, nasal cavity width, and root resorption (very low to low evidence quality). Hybrid tooth-bone-borne RME was associated with less buccal tipping of the first premolar (2 trials; MD - 4.0°; 95% CI - 0.9 to - 7.1°; moderate evidence quality) and lower nasal airway resistance post-retention (1 trial; MD - 0.2 Pa s/cm³; 95% CI - 0.4 to 0 Pa s/cm³; moderate evidence quality) compared to tooth-borne RME, while no significant difference could be found regarding skeletal maxillary width, molar inclination, and analgesic use (low to moderate evidence quality). The main limitations affecting the validity of the present findings were (a) imprecision due to the inclusion of few trials with limited sample sizes that precluded robust detection of existing differences and (b) methodological issues of the included trials that could lead to bias.

Conclusions

Limited evidence from randomized trials indicates that bone-borne or hybrid tooth-bone-borne RME might present advantages in terms of increased sutural opening, reduced tooth tipping, and lower nasal airway resistance compared to conventional tooth-borne RME. However, the limited number of existing studies and issues in their conduct or reporting preclude the drawing of definite conclusions.

Review registration

PROSPERO ( CRD42017079107 ).

SUBMITTER: Krusi M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6387979 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:To investigate the feasibility, safety and stability of current interventions for moving teeth through the maxillary sinus (MTTMS) by performing a systematic review of the literature. METHODS:The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI and SIGLE were searched without a language restriction. The primary outcomes were parameters related to orthodontic treatment, including orthodontic protocols, magnitude of forces, type of tooth movement, duration and rate of tooth movement, and remolding of alveolar bone and the maxillary sinus floor. The secondary outcomes were safety and stability, including root resorption, perforation of the sinus floor, loss of pulp vitality and periodontal health and relapse. RESULTS:Nine case reports with 25 teeth were included and systematically analyzed. Fifty to two hundred g of force was applied to move teeth through the maxillary sinus. Bodily movement was accomplished, but initial tipping was observed in 7 cases. The rate was 0.6-0.7 mm/month for molar intrusion and 0.16-1.17 and 0.05-0.16 mm/month for mesial-distal movement of premolars and molars, respectively. Bone formation and remolding of the sinus floor occurred in 7 cases. Root resorption within 6 to 30 months was observed in 3 cases, while no cases of perforation of the sinus floor, loss of pulp vitality, periodontal health impairment or relapse were reported. CONCLUSIONS:At the present stage, no evidence-based protocol could be recommended to guide MTTMS. The empirical application of constant and light to moderate forces (by TAD, segment and multibrackets) to slowly move teeth through or into the maxillary sinus in adults appears to be practical and secure. Bodily movement was accomplished, but teeth appear to be easily tipped initially, potentially resulting in root resorption. However, this conclusion should be interpreted with caution as the currently available evidence is based on only a few case reports or case series and longitudinal or controlled studies are lacking in this area.

Project description:ObjectivesThe majority of human maxillary first molars is usually described as having three roots, but different morphologies were documented in several studies and case reports. One very rare and less investigated anatomical anomaly is the occurrence of four radicular structures in the upper first molars. This communication aimed to define the prevalence of four-rooted maxillary first molars on a meta-analytical basis. The external and internal morphology of these teeth was described by the collection of published case reports.Materials and methodsSix electronic databases were accessed to collect case reports dealing with four-rooted maxillary first molars, as well as population-based cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) studies. Afterward, the publications were selected according to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria and evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. The teeth of the chosen case reports were then independently analyzed by two dental professionals according to different dental classifications. Furthermore, the population studies were meta-analyzed to calculate the global and regional prevalence of four-rooted maxillary molars.ResultsIncluded were forty-nine population-based CBCT studies containing 26663 maxillary first molars. Upon these data, the global incidence of four-rooted maxillary molars was meta-analytically determined as 0.047% (95%-CI:0.011-0.103%). In combination with the case reports, it was pointed out that this anomaly is distributed worldwide. Furthermore, forty-eight case reports were included containing fifty-three maxillary molars with four roots. The analyzed teeth exhibited Versiani´s pulpal chamber floor Types A and B. The majority of four-rooted maxillary first molars were classified as Type I regarding Christie's configuration. But, also 7.54% of the altered teeth could not be described by this classification. 62.34% exhibited four root canals, but also variations with five, six, or seven canals were identified. Furthermore, a significant difference was found in the occurrence rate between male and female patients.ConclusionDue to the worldwide occurrence, dental professionals should be aware of this rare anomaly to avoid treatment errors, especially during endodontic or surgical therapies.

Project description:BackgroundMaxillary protraction with or without expansion is a widely known orthopedic treatment modality in growing skeletal Class III patients. However, limited data are available regarding the outcomes of long-term changes in the maxilla. Aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of the long-term maxillary anteroposterior changes following a facemask therapy with or without rapid maxillary expansion in growing skeletal Class III patients.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using the databases of PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, published up to Sep. 2020, with maxillary protraction and/or expansion as keywords were included in this meta-analysis. Risk of bias within and across studies were assessed using the Cochrane tools (RoB2.0 and ROBINS-I) and GRADE approach. Overall and subgroup comparisons with the random-effect model were performed in this meta-analysis. Meta-regression models were designed to determine potential heterogeneity.ResultsThere was a statistically significant increase (Mean difference, 2.29°; 95% confidence interval, 1.86-2.73; and p < 0.001 after facemask (FM) protraction. Mean difference, 1.73°; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-2.11; and p < 0.001 after rapid maxillary expansion(RME) and facemask protraction) in the Sella-Nasion-A point (SNA) angle in the treatment groups as compared with the control groups, when measured during the less than 3-year follow-up period. However, no statistically significant changes (Mean difference, 0.28°; 95% confidence interval, -0.57-1.13; and p = 0.52 after facemask protraction. Mean difference, 0.34°; 95% confidence interval, -0.64-1.33; and p = 0.50 after rapid maxillary expansion and facemask protraction) were observed in the SNA angle in the groups, when measured after 3 years of follow-up. Meta-regression analysis also showed that with increased follow-up duration, the effectiveness of maxillary protraction decreased.ConclusionThis meta-analysis revealed that maxillary protraction therapy could be effective for a short-term in correcting maxillary hypoplasia and the treatment result was not affected by mean age and sex. However, with increased follow-up duration, the sagittal maxillary changes gradually decreased. Limitations on this review were only the SNA angle was used and clinical heterogeneity was not discussed. The quality of evidence was moderate. Further long-term observational studies are necessary for a comprehensive evaluation of the effects on maxillary skeletal changes.