Comparison between orthodontic and surgical uprighting of mandibular molars: a systematic review.

Objectives: To evaluate and compare the efficiency of orthodontic treatment and surgical uprighting of first and second mandibular molars.

Materials and methods: An electronic literature search in PubMed, Science Direct, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and Google Scholar, as well as a hand search was conducted by two independent researchers to identify relevant articles up to January 2022. In addition, a manual search was done that included article reference lists, grey literature, and dissertations. The risk of bias of the included prospective and retrospective studies was assessed with the Risk Of Bias Tool In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool.

Results: A total of six nonrandomized clinical trials (non-RCT) evaluating the efficiency of mandibular molar orthodontic and/or surgical uprighting were included. The quality analysis showed certain defects of the Non-RCTs included and, according to the criteria used, the majority of the articles were judged to be of moderate quality.

Conclusions: Based on the evidence, orthodontic and surgical uprighting appear to be effective treatment methods for mandibular molars. Surgical uprighting may be associated with more complications than orthodontic uprighting. However, the existing literature on the subject is limited, heterogeneous, and methodologically limited. Therefore, the outcomes should be interpreted carefully.