牙科固定与骨骼固定的牙齿移动:临床试验系统回顾

Q2 Dentistry Journal of Orthodontic Science Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.4103/jos.jos_4_23
V. Ravelo, G. Olate, Leonardo Brito, Roberto Sacco, Sergio Olate
{"title":"牙科固定与骨骼固定的牙齿移动:临床试验系统回顾","authors":"V. Ravelo, G. Olate, Leonardo Brito, Roberto Sacco, Sergio Olate","doi":"10.4103/jos.jos_4_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this study is to compare the time and movement of orthodontic treatment using dental anchorage and skeletal anchorage in adolescent and adult patients with dental malocclusions. A systematic search was conducted in the Embase, PubMed, Lilacs, Cochrane, Trip, and Scopus databases up to October 2022. All the articles were selected using title and abstract, applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved with a third author. Finally, a full-text selection took place. The data extraction was conducted by two authors who independently evaluated the risk of bias. The methodological quality of the randomized clinical trials was evaluated using the Cochrane tool for the evaluation of the randomized clinical trials. Six articles were included in the data analysis. There were four clinical trials and two randomized clinical trials. A total of 176 patients was obtained with an age range between 14 and 46 years. Four studies showed significant differences when comparing the two anchorages in retraction or distalization of tooth groups, and two showed no differences when using dental and skeletal anchorage for vertical movements; only the articles with vertical movements showed relapse. We can conclude that skeletal anchorage generates precise and stable horizontal movements without overloading or changing the position of the molar. Future studies must incorporate three-dimensional technology for greater clinical accuracy.","PeriodicalId":16604,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthodontic Science","volume":"18 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tooth movement with dental anchorage vs. skeletal anchorage: A systematic review of clinical trials\",\"authors\":\"V. Ravelo, G. Olate, Leonardo Brito, Roberto Sacco, Sergio Olate\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jos.jos_4_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this study is to compare the time and movement of orthodontic treatment using dental anchorage and skeletal anchorage in adolescent and adult patients with dental malocclusions. A systematic search was conducted in the Embase, PubMed, Lilacs, Cochrane, Trip, and Scopus databases up to October 2022. All the articles were selected using title and abstract, applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved with a third author. Finally, a full-text selection took place. The data extraction was conducted by two authors who independently evaluated the risk of bias. The methodological quality of the randomized clinical trials was evaluated using the Cochrane tool for the evaluation of the randomized clinical trials. Six articles were included in the data analysis. There were four clinical trials and two randomized clinical trials. A total of 176 patients was obtained with an age range between 14 and 46 years. Four studies showed significant differences when comparing the two anchorages in retraction or distalization of tooth groups, and two showed no differences when using dental and skeletal anchorage for vertical movements; only the articles with vertical movements showed relapse. We can conclude that skeletal anchorage generates precise and stable horizontal movements without overloading or changing the position of the molar. Future studies must incorporate three-dimensional technology for greater clinical accuracy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthodontic Science\",\"volume\":\"18 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthodontic Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jos.jos_4_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthodontic Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jos.jos_4_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是比较青少年和成年牙颌畸形患者使用牙齿固定器和骨骼固定器进行正畸治疗的时间和移动情况。截至 2022 年 10 月,我们在 Embase、PubMed、Lilacs、Cochrane、Trip 和 Scopus 数据库中进行了系统检索。所有文章均采用纳入和排除标准,通过标题和摘要进行筛选。如有异议,则由第三位作者解决。最后进行全文筛选。数据提取由两名作者进行,他们独立评估了偏倚风险。随机临床试验的方法学质量采用 Cochrane 随机临床试验评估工具进行评估。共有六篇文章被纳入数据分析。其中有四项临床试验和两项随机临床试验。共有 176 名患者接受了治疗,年龄介于 14 岁至 46 岁之间。四项研究显示,在牙齿后缩或远端化的组别中,两种固定方式的比较有明显差异,两项研究显示,在使用牙科和骨骼固定方式进行垂直移动时没有差异;只有进行垂直移动的文章显示有复发。我们可以得出结论,骨骼固定装置可以产生精确稳定的水平移动,而不会使臼齿负担过重或改变其位置。未来的研究必须结合三维技术,以提高临床精确度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Tooth movement with dental anchorage vs. skeletal anchorage: A systematic review of clinical trials
The aim of this study is to compare the time and movement of orthodontic treatment using dental anchorage and skeletal anchorage in adolescent and adult patients with dental malocclusions. A systematic search was conducted in the Embase, PubMed, Lilacs, Cochrane, Trip, and Scopus databases up to October 2022. All the articles were selected using title and abstract, applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved with a third author. Finally, a full-text selection took place. The data extraction was conducted by two authors who independently evaluated the risk of bias. The methodological quality of the randomized clinical trials was evaluated using the Cochrane tool for the evaluation of the randomized clinical trials. Six articles were included in the data analysis. There were four clinical trials and two randomized clinical trials. A total of 176 patients was obtained with an age range between 14 and 46 years. Four studies showed significant differences when comparing the two anchorages in retraction or distalization of tooth groups, and two showed no differences when using dental and skeletal anchorage for vertical movements; only the articles with vertical movements showed relapse. We can conclude that skeletal anchorage generates precise and stable horizontal movements without overloading or changing the position of the molar. Future studies must incorporate three-dimensional technology for greater clinical accuracy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Orthodontic Science
Journal of Orthodontic Science Dentistry-Orthodontics
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊最新文献
Investigating the characteristics of the mandibular canal in cone beam CT. Orthodontic practice marketing: The orthodontist and laypeople's perspective. Role of physical and dentofacial features in bullying among United Arab Emirates schoolchildren and its impact on school performance - A cross-sectional study. Quantitative assessment of orthodontic treatments performed by graduate orthodontic students of an International School of Dentistry. Skeletal and dental effects of skeletally anchored forsus fatigue resistant devices during class II malocclusion treatment: A meta-analysis and systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1