Soft tissue changes with skeletal anchorage in comparison to conventional anchorage protocols in the treatment of bimaxillary proclination patients treated with premolar extraction : A systematic review.
Kumeran Mohan, Saritha Sivarajan, May Nak Lau, Siti Adibah Othman, Mona M Salah Fayed
{"title":"Soft tissue changes with skeletal anchorage in comparison to conventional anchorage protocols in the treatment of bimaxillary proclination patients treated with premolar extraction : A systematic review.","authors":"Kumeran Mohan, Saritha Sivarajan, May Nak Lau, Siti Adibah Othman, Mona M Salah Fayed","doi":"10.1007/s00056-022-00411-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This review systematically evaluates the evidence related to comparisons between skeletal and conventional anchorage protocols in the treatment of bimaxillary proclination patients who underwent premolars extraction with respect to soft tissue profile changes, treatment duration and three-dimensional (3D) soft tissue changes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic database search and hand search with no language limitations were conducted in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov. The selection criteria were set to include studies with patients aged 13 years and above requiring extractions of upper and lower first premolars to treat bimaxillary proclination with high anchorage demand. Risk of bias assessment was undertaken with Cochrane's Risk Of Bias tool 2.0 (ROB 2.0) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and ROBINS‑I tool for nonrandomised prospective studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for quality assessment. Results were summarised qualitatively; no meta-analysis was conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two RCTs and two nonrandomised prospective studies were included. According to the GRADE approach, there is low to very low quality of evidence that treatment using mini-implant anchorage may significantly change nasolabial angle, upper and lower lip procumbence, and facial convexity angle compared to treatment with conventional anchorage. Similarly, very low quality evidence exists showing no differences in treatment duration between treatments with skeletal or conventional anchorage.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The overall existing evidence regarding the effect of anchorage protocols on soft tissue changes in patients with bimaxillary protrusion and premolar extraction treatment plans is of low quality.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42020216684.</p>","PeriodicalId":54776,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-022-00411-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: This review systematically evaluates the evidence related to comparisons between skeletal and conventional anchorage protocols in the treatment of bimaxillary proclination patients who underwent premolars extraction with respect to soft tissue profile changes, treatment duration and three-dimensional (3D) soft tissue changes.
Methods: Electronic database search and hand search with no language limitations were conducted in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov. The selection criteria were set to include studies with patients aged 13 years and above requiring extractions of upper and lower first premolars to treat bimaxillary proclination with high anchorage demand. Risk of bias assessment was undertaken with Cochrane's Risk Of Bias tool 2.0 (ROB 2.0) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and ROBINS‑I tool for nonrandomised prospective studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for quality assessment. Results were summarised qualitatively; no meta-analysis was conducted.
Results: Two RCTs and two nonrandomised prospective studies were included. According to the GRADE approach, there is low to very low quality of evidence that treatment using mini-implant anchorage may significantly change nasolabial angle, upper and lower lip procumbence, and facial convexity angle compared to treatment with conventional anchorage. Similarly, very low quality evidence exists showing no differences in treatment duration between treatments with skeletal or conventional anchorage.
Conclusions: The overall existing evidence regarding the effect of anchorage protocols on soft tissue changes in patients with bimaxillary protrusion and premolar extraction treatment plans is of low quality.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics provides orthodontists and dentists who are also actively interested in orthodontics, whether in university clinics or private practice, with highly authoritative and up-to-date information based on experimental and clinical research. The journal is one of the leading publications for the promulgation of the results of original work both in the areas of scientific and clinical orthodontics and related areas. All articles undergo peer review before publication. The German Society of Orthodontics (DGKFO) also publishes in the journal important communications, statements and announcements.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
