Search

To evaluate systematically the effectiveness of miniscrew-supported maxillary incisor intrusion compared with other nonsurgical intrusive mechanics for deep-bite correction. Unrestricted electronic searches in Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, LILACS, and Cochrane's CENTRAL as well as manual searches were conducted up to August 2019. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. Study selection, data extraction, and bias assessment were done by two independent reviewers. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used, and the quality of evidence was graded using the GRADE approach. A random-effects meta-analysis of continuous data, with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs), was used. Seven RCTs were included in the quantitative synthesis, and the overall quality of evidence was very low to low. When compared with intrusion arches, miniscrews resulted in a more efficient deep-bite reduction with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of −0.48 (95% CI, −0.89 to −0.07). When miniscrews were used, a statistically significant difference was observed favoring less maxillary molar extrusion (SMD, −0.86; 95% CI, −1.46 to −0.27) and more incisor intrusion as measured from centroid to palatal plane (SMD, −0.95; 95% CI, −1.41 to −0.49). Results also showed a statistically nonsignificant difference regarding the amount of resultant root resorption between miniscrews and intrusion arches. There is weak evidence indicating efficient deep-bite correction using miniscrews. Root resorption seems to be an associated adverse effect that occurs regardless of the intrusive mechanics used. These conclusions should be viewed with great caution as further well-designed long-term research is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anchorage in orthodontics can be provided through several extra- and intra-oral sources including headgear, teeth, cortical bone and soft tissue.Objective: The aim of this review was to systematically review the effectiveness of miniscrews in reinforcing anchorage during en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in comparison to conventional anchorage appliances. Search method: Comprehensive searching of the electronic databases was undertaken up to March 2018 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic review, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE via PubMed and Scopus databases. Additional searching for on-going and unpublished data and hand search of relevant journals were also undertaken, authors were contacted, and reference lists screened. Eligibility criteria: Searches were restricted to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in English, which compared anchorage reinforcement using mechanically-retained miniscrews (diameter of 2 mm or less) to conventional anchorage appliances during en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in participants of any age treated with fixed appliances combined with extraction of maxillary premolars.Data Collection and Analysis: Blind and induplicate study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were undertaken. The primary outcome was the amount of mesial movement of the upper first permanent molar (anchorage loss) while secondary outcomes included treatment duration, number of visits, adverse effects and patient-centered outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. A random-effects model with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were generated for comparable outcomes. Statistical heterogeneity across the studies were assessed using the I2 and Chi2 test. Additional sensitivity tests were implemented.Results: Seven RCTs met the inclusion criteria, however, data of 241 participants from 6 RCTs (250 miniscrews and 134 conventional anchorage appliances) were meta-analyzed. Qualities of the included RCTs varied from low to high. The standardized mean difference (SMD) of the anchrage loss between the two intervention groups was 2.07 mm ((95% CI (-3.05) to (-1.08), p < .001, I2 = 88%, 6 RCTs)) in favour of miniscrews, which was also preserved after excluding the high risk of bias studies (SMD 1.94 mm, 95% CI (-2.46) to (-0.42) p < .001, I2 = 93%, 3 RCTs)). Information on overall treatment duration, space closure duration, quality of treatment, patient-reported outcomes, adverse effects and number of visit were limited.Conclusion: The result of the meta-analysis suggested that there is moderate quality of evidence that miniscrews are clinically and statistically more effective in preserving orthodontic anchorage than conventional appliances. However, this conclusion is supported by a small number of studies with variable qualities. High-quality RCTs would give a better understanding of miniscrews effectiveness in providing orthodontic anchorage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This review aims to compare the effectiveness of en masse and two-step retraction methods during orthodontic space closure regarding anchorage preservation and anterior segment retraction and to assess their effect on the duration of treatment and root resorption. Methods: An electronic search for potentially eligible randomized controlled trials and prospective controlled trials was performed in five electronic databases up to July 2017. The process of study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment was performed by two reviewers independently. A narrative review is presented in addition to a quantitative synthesis of the pooled results where possible. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used for the methodological quality assessment of the included studies. Results: Eight studies were included in the qualitative synthesis in this review. Four studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. En masse/miniscrew combination showed a statistically significant standard mean difference regarding anchorage preservation − 2.55 mm (95% CI − 2.99 to − 2.11) and the amount of upper incisor retraction − 0.38 mm (95% CI − 0.70 to − 0.06) when compared to a two-step/conventional anchorage combination. Qualitative synthesis suggested that en masse retraction requires less time than two-step retraction with no difference in the amount of root resorption. Conclusions: Both en masse and two-step retraction methods are effective during the space closure phase. The en masse/miniscrew combination is superior to the two-step/conventional anchorage combination with regard to anchorage preservation and amount of retraction. Limited evidence suggests that anchorage reinforcement with a headgear produces similar results with both retraction methods. Limited evidence also suggests that en masse retraction may require less time and that no significant differences exist in the amount of root resorption between the two methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To identify the appropriate treatment for the correction of anterior crossbite. Design: Systematic review. Data source: A search strategy was developed along with inclusion criteria and run in Scopus, Medline, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and psychiNFO databases. Selection criteria: Children in the primary or mixed dentition with an anterior crossbite affecting one or more incisors, and no underlying skeletal class Ill discrepancy. Data selection and extraction: All potential articles were checked against the inclusion criteria independently, and in duplicate by two investigators. Reference lists were checked for relevance and possible inclusion. Manual data extraction was carried out using a standardized format and agreed by the two investigators. Outcomes: Time taken to correct the crossbite and treatment duration. Data synthesis: The data were arranged by type of study and further subdivided by treatment type. Results: A total of 499 articles were identified following electronic and hand searching and checking reference lists. Following examination of titles, abstracts and, where applicable full articles, 46 articles were included. Owing to the low levels of evidence, no statistical methods were employed. Conclusion: This review has highlighted the lack of high quality evidence for the management of anterior crossbites in children. Although the level of evidence is low, there is similarity in the length of time it took to successfully treat anterior crossbites using similar treatment modalities. High level studies are required before definitive conclusions can be made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This review aimed to identify the evidence for the efficacy of archwires used in the alignment stage of orthodontic treatment by undertaking a systematic review of the literature. Data Sources: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, and the meta Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to July 2008. Reference lists of identified articles and relevant review articles were checked for further possible studies. Review Methods: Controlled clinical trials and randomised clinical trials that compared aligning archwires and reported objective measures of alignment were selected for inclusion. Validity and quality assessment were undertaken to identify studies with a low risk of bias. Details of the study methodology and the reported results were then abstracted. Results: 100 studies were identified by the searches and 7 of these were identified as meeting the selection criteria. Four studies were deemed, after quality assessment, to have a low risk of bias and data was extracted from these. No two studies shared a common methodology or common reporting of outcome. Meta-analysis was therefore not possible. Conclusions: There is insufficient data in these studies to make clear recommendations regarding the most effective archwire for alignment. Recommendations on future study design have been made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]