Dataset Information

Evaluation of Treatment Outcomes of En masse Retraction with Temporary Skeletal Anchorage Devices in Comparison with Two-step Retraction with Conventional Anchorage in Patients with Dentoalveolar Protrusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Objective:The main objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of en masse retraction with temporary skeletal anchorage devices (TSADs) versus two-step retraction with conventional anchorage (CA) in terms of the skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue variables, as well as the duration of retraction or overall orthodontic treatment. Materials and Methods:An electronic search of PubMed and nine other major databases for prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) was carried out between January 1990 and April 2018. The bibliography in each identified article was checked out. In addition, manual searching was performed in the same time frame in five major orthodontic journals. Adult patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with extraction of maxillary premolars followed by an en masse retraction in the experimental group and two-step retraction of upper anterior teeth in the control group. Methodological index for nonrandomized studies for CCTs and Cochrane's risk of bias tool for RCTs were applied. Results:Four articles (two RCTs and two CCTs) were included in this review and all articles were appropriate for the quantitative synthesis. There was no significant difference between the en masse retraction and two-step retraction groups in terms of SNA, SNB, ANB, and MP-SN angles. Using TSADs gave significantly better results in terms of posterior anchorage and incisors inclination, and greater anterior teeth retraction in comparison with CA (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -3.03 mm, P < 0.001; SMD = 0.74°, P = 0.003; SMD = -0.46 mm, P = 0.03, respectively). En masse/TSAD combination caused a significantly greater increase in nasolabial angle, higher decrease in facial convexity angle, and greater lower lip retraction in comparison with two-step/CA combination (weighted mean difference = 4.73°, P = 0.007; P = 0.0435; SMD = -0.95 mm, P = 0.01, respectively). Conclusion:There is weak-to-moderate evidence that using either en masse/TSAD combination or two-step/CA combination would lead to similar skeletal improvement. There is a very weak-to-moderate evidence that using TSADs with en masse retraction would cause better posterior anchorage and incisors inclination, and greater anterior teeth retraction than using CA with two-step retraction. There is weak-to-moderate evidence that using en masse/TSAD combination would lead to a better improvement in the facial profile. According to the quality of evidence, we confirm the need for more well-conducted RCTs in the en masse retraction field.

SUBMITTER: Khlef HN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6868609 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of Treatment Outcomes of <i>En masse</i> Retraction with Temporary Skeletal Anchorage Devices in Comparison with Two-step Retraction with Conventional Anchorage in Patients with Dentoalveolar Protrusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Khlef Hanin Nizar HN Hajeer Mohammad Younis MY Ajaj Mowaffak A MA Heshmeh Omar O

Contemporary clinical dentistry 20181001 4

<h4>Objective</h4>The main objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of <i>en masse</i> retraction with temporary skeletal anchorage devices (TSADs) versus two-step retraction with conventional anchorage (CA) in terms of the skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue variables, as well as the duration of retraction or overall orthodontic treatment.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>An electronic search of PubMed and nine other major databases for prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical ...[more]

PMID: 31772456

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/aimRetraction of the upper incisors/canines requires maximum anchorage. The aim of the present study was to analyze the efficacy of mini implants in comparison to conventional devices in patients with need for en masse retraction of the front teeth in the upper jaw.Material and methodsAn electronic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE and hand searching were performed. Relevant articles were assessed, and data were extracted for statistical analysis. A random effects model, weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed for horizontal and vertical anchorage loss at the first molars in the analyzed patient treatments.ResultsA total of seven RCTs employing direct anchorage through implants in the alveolar ridge were finally considered for qualitative and quantitative analysis, and further five publications were considered for the qualitative analysis only (three studies: indirect anchorage through implant in the mid-palate, two studies: direct/indirect anchorage in the alveolar ridge). In the control groups, anchorage was achieved through transpalatal arches, headgear, Nance buttons, intrusion arches, and differential moments. WMD [95% CI, p] in anchorage loss between test and control groups amounted to - 2.79 mm [- 3.56 to - 2.03 mm, p < 0.001] in the horizontal and - 1.76 mm [- 2.56 to - 0.97, p < 0.001] favoring skeletal anchorage over control measures. The qualitative analysis revealed that minor anchorage loss can be associated with indirect anchorage, whereas anchorage gain was commonly associated with direct anchorage. Implant failures were comparable for both anchorage modalities (direct 9.9%, indirect 8.6%).ConclusionWithin its limitations, the meta-analysis revealed that maximum anchorage en masse retraction can be achieved by orthodontic mini implants and direct anchorage; however, the ideal implant location (palate versus alveolar ridge) and the beneficial effect of direct over indirect anchorage needs to be further evaluated.

Project description:Analysis of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is essential to ensure that the skeletal and traditional anchoring methods are appropriately and effectively utilized in the context of patient acceptance and satisfaction. This review's objective was to assess the available data on the levels of discomfort, soft-tissue irritation, functional impairment, and other patient-reported outcomes related to the usage of mini-implants in the context of fixed orthodontic treatment for adult patients. A total of seven electronic bibliographic databases were searched between January 1995 and February 2022. Moreover, a manual search was done in the selected orthodontic journals. This systematic review (SR) covered cohort studies, retrospective studies, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that studied the use of mini-implants, mini-plates, or onplants as anchorage devices on patients receiving orthodontic treatment. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool (RoB2 tool). Three RCTs and two cohorts were included in this SR with a total of 468 patients. Three of the four included studies were at high risk of bias. The pain level was in the "mild-to-moderate" category on the first day following the insertion of mini-implants, then decreased to a mild level from the fifth day to the seventh day of insertion (mean values are 36.61, 16.36, and 11.33, respectively). The levels of functional impairments were found to be located between the "mild-to-moderate" and "moderate" categories after the placement of mini-plates and intermaxillary fixation screws, while they experienced a mild level with mini-implants. The greatest pain levels were found after the insertion of the temporary anchorage devices (TADs) and then decreased until they became mild or disappeared completely after one month. Speaking, chewing, and cleaning difficulties were more problematic when using TADs compared to conventional anchorage. To obtain good evidence in this area, more high-quality RCTs are needed.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of Treatment Outcomes of En masse Retraction with Temporary Skeletal Anchorage Devices in Comparison with Two-step Retraction with Conventional Anchorage in Patients with Dentoalveolar Protrusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Publications

Evaluation of Treatment Outcomes of <i>En masse</i> Retraction with Temporary Skeletal Anchorage Devices in Comparison with Two-step Retraction with Conventional Anchorage in Patients with Dentoalveolar Protrusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets