Search

Cephalometric analysis is an essential tool used in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. The main objectives of correct cephalometric analysis include resolving anteroposterior and vertical maxillary and mandibular base discrepancies. For a diagnostic tool to be of value, it should be precise, reliable and reproducible. Unfortunately, according to some studies, the accuracy of input and, therefore, the diagnostic reliability of some of the points and measurements may not be satisfactory. To this end, new cephalometric measurements are being developed with increased precision. In order to properly and definitively determine the usefulness of a given measurement in cephalometric diagnosis, it is necessary to carry out a critical evaluation of available studies. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available scientific literature describing new landmarks and reference linear and angular measurements of 2D cephalometric analyses assessing the sagittal and vertical discrepancy in the position of jaw bases since the last systematic review in 2013. The secondary aim was to assess the accuracy and reliability of new anthropometric landmarks and reference planes in relation to those used previously, and their instability in relation to growth and orthodontic tooth movements. To carry out the intended plan, electronic databases such as PubMed, Scholar Google, Web of Science and Pro Quest were searched using specific keywords. Initially, a total of 1451 articles were retrieved. Then, duplicate articles in all databases were excluded from the resulting publications. The results showed that despite such a high number of articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, only 12 studies on new cephalometric analyses in the sagittal plane and 4 studies on new cephalometric analyses in the horizontal plane met the criteria and, as a result, were included in the review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are various methods of controlling the inclination of the incisors during retraction, but there is no evidence as to the advantages of some methods over others. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness of the methods used to control torque during anterior teeth retraction. Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, the main research question was defined in the PICO format [P: patients with complete permanent dentition; I: the maxillary incisor torque after (I) and before I retraction with straight-wire appliance and different modes of torque control; O: statistically significant differences in torque values of the upper incisors after orthodontic treatment]. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for keywords combining: retraction orthodontics, torque control orthodontics, torque orthodontics, inclination orthodontics, torque control retraction. The articles were subjected to risk of bias and quality analyses with the ROBINS-I protocol and the modified Newcastle–Ottawa QAS, respectively. Meta-analyses were performed with both fixed- and random-effects models. Results: 13 articles were selected in which total number of 580 subjects took part. In all studies, incisors were retroclined during retraction by 2.46° (mean difference), which was statistically significant. Considering the articles separately, the differences in torque between the study group and the control group were statistically significant in six articles. The Q statistic was 36.25 with p = 0.0003 and I2 = 66.9%, which indicated a high level of study heterogeneity. Conclusion: Both properly performed corticotomy and en-masse retraction using orthodontic microimplants seem to be the most effective and scientifically validated methods of torque control. Further high-quality research is needed to perform better quality analyses and draw more reliable conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]