Dataset Information

Effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction and anchorage preservation during the two-step technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Temporary anchorage devices have been used for decades in orthodontic practice for many applications. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction during the two-step technique. METHODS:A search was systematically performed for articles published prior to June 30, 2019 in five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled clinical trials (CCTs). The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for the quality assessment. Data concerning the mean difference in mesial molar movement and extent of canine retraction were extracted for statistical analysis. The mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were analyzed for continuous data. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model for comparable outcomes was carried out. RESULTS:Three RCTs and five CCTs were finally included. Meta-analysis showed a significant increase not only in anchorage preservation in the implant anchorage group in both the maxilla (1.56?mm, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.98, P?

SUBMITTER: Tian H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7547464 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction and anchorage preservation during the two-step technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Tian Haonan H Xie Congman C Lin Min M Yang Hongmei H Ren Aishu A

BMC oral health 20201010 1

<h4>Background</h4>Temporary anchorage devices have been used for decades in orthodontic practice for many applications. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction during the two-step technique.<h4>Methods</h4>A search was systematically performed for articles published prior to June 30, 2019 in five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus). ...[more]

PMID: 33036593

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe 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 methodsAn 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.ResultsFour 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).ConclusionThere 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.

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.

Project description:BackgroundThe aims of this study were to evaluate the efficacy of alveolar corticotomy (AC) and piezocision (PZ) in accelerating maxillary canine retraction, and their effects on multiple bone remodeling expression in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF). A split-mouth, randomized controlled clinical trial was performed at the Department of Orthodontics of Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Eligibility criteria included orthodontic need for first maxillary premolars extractions, followed by canine retraction. Fifty-one adult patients were recruited and randomly assigned to 3 groups (allocation ratio 1:1:1). Random allocation of surgical or control interventions to each side of the maxillary arch was also conducted: G1 - AC × Control, G2 - PZ × Control, and G3 - AC × PZ. Both the definition of the group and the decision of the experimental or control sides were randomized by the software. Intraoral digital scans were performed before, 7 and 14 days after the beginning of canine retraction, and subsequently, at every 14 days until a maximum period of 6 months. GCF samples were collected before, and 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The primary outcome consisted in the cumulative distal movement of the canines and was measured by digital model superimposition. The secondary outcome consisted in GCF bone remodeling samples that were quantified in a multiplex immunoassay. The measurements examinator was properly blinded.ResultsForty-seven patients, 19 males and 28 females, were analyzed (mean age 20.72, SD = 6.66, range 15 to 38). Statistically significant differences in canine distal movement between AC and control in G1 were not observed (p > 0.05). In G2, PZ showed lower cumulative incisal and cervical measurements than control from the 2nd to the 24th week (p < 0.05). In G3, PZ showed a lower cumulative incisal and cervical measurements than AC from the16th to the 24th week (p < 0.05). In all groups, differences on biomarkers expression occurred at specific timepoints (p < 0.05), but a distinct pattern was not observed.ConclusionsAC and PZ were not effective to accelerate maxillary canine retraction and did not induce a distinct pattern of biomarker expression.Trial registrationNCT03089996 . Registered 24 March 2017 - Registered.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction and anchorage preservation during the two-step technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction and anchorage preservation during the two-step technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets