American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2020
The effect of micro-osteoperforations on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sivarajan Saritha, Ringgingon Lorretha P, Fayed Mona M Salah, Wey Mang Chek
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) look promising for a routine acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement (OTM). The objective of this research was to systematically evaluate evidence regarding the effects of MOPs on the OTM rate, treatment duration, and associated complications.
METHODS: Electronic database and hand search of English literature in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, and clinical trial.gov, with author clarification were performed. The selection criteria were randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing MOPs with conventional treatment involving both extraction and nonextraction. Cochrane's risk of bias tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach were used for quality assessment. Studies were analyzed with chi-square-based Q statistic methods, I2 index, fixed-effects, and random-effects model. Quantitative analysis was done on homogenous studies using Review Manager.
RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included for the qualitative analysis. Meta-analysis of 2 homogenous studies indicated insignificant effect with MOPs (0.01 mm less OTM; 95% CI, 0.13-0.11; P = 0.83). No difference (P >0.05) was found in anchorage loss, root resorption, gingival recession, and pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of 2 low-risk of bias studies showed no effect with single application MOPs over a short observation period; however, the overall evidence was low. The quality of evidence for MOP side effects ranged from high to low. Future studies are suggested to investigate repeated MOPs effect over the entire treatment duration for different models of OTM and its related biological changes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CDR42019118642.
METHODS: Electronic database and hand search of English literature in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, and clinical trial.gov, with author clarification were performed. The selection criteria were randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing MOPs with conventional treatment involving both extraction and nonextraction. Cochrane's risk of bias tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach were used for quality assessment. Studies were analyzed with chi-square-based Q statistic methods, I2 index, fixed-effects, and random-effects model. Quantitative analysis was done on homogenous studies using Review Manager.
RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included for the qualitative analysis. Meta-analysis of 2 homogenous studies indicated insignificant effect with MOPs (0.01 mm less OTM; 95% CI, 0.13-0.11; P = 0.83). No difference (P >0.05) was found in anchorage loss, root resorption, gingival recession, and pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of 2 low-risk of bias studies showed no effect with single application MOPs over a short observation period; however, the overall evidence was low. The quality of evidence for MOP side effects ranged from high to low. Future studies are suggested to investigate repeated MOPs effect over the entire treatment duration for different models of OTM and its related biological changes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CDR42019118642.