The journal of evidence-based dental practice · 2020
Comparison Between Removable and Fixed Devices for Nonskeletal Anterior Crossbite Correction in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review.
СтатьяСистематический 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.
Jorge Jader Oliva, Corradi-Dias Larissa, Flores-Mir Carlos, Pordeus Isabela Almeida, Paiva Saul Martins, Abreu Lucas Guimarães
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare removable and fixed orthodontic devices in the correction of non-skeletal anterior crossbite in children and adolescents in the mixed dentition.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Medline Ovid, Lilacs, US Clinical Trials, and Proquest. A hand search of the reference lists of the included articles and a Google Scholar search were also conducted. References were evaluated by 2 review authors. Articles that met the eligibility criteria were included. Data extraction, methodological quality assessment (Cochrane tool), and strength of the evidence evaluation (GRADE) were also carried out.
RESULTS: Seven articles were included. The results showed that removable and fixed devices were equally efficacious for overjet correction. Removable and fixed devices can also present inconveniences regarding pain and discomfort levels, the accomplishment of everyday activities (leisure and school), and the performance of functions, such as chewing and speech. However, treatment time and costs were significantly lower in orthodontic therapy with fixed appliances. Sequence generation, allocation concealment, and complete outcome data were not a concern. Blinding of participants or personnel was not reported in any article, and blinding of the assessor was a concern in 2 articles. Selective reporting was a concern in 2 articles. The certainty of the evidence for overjet correction was very low.
CONCLUSION: Removable and fixed orthodontic devices are efficacious for overjet correction in non-skeletal anterior crossbite. However, treatment time and costs are lower for cases treated with fixed devices.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Medline Ovid, Lilacs, US Clinical Trials, and Proquest. A hand search of the reference lists of the included articles and a Google Scholar search were also conducted. References were evaluated by 2 review authors. Articles that met the eligibility criteria were included. Data extraction, methodological quality assessment (Cochrane tool), and strength of the evidence evaluation (GRADE) were also carried out.
RESULTS: Seven articles were included. The results showed that removable and fixed devices were equally efficacious for overjet correction. Removable and fixed devices can also present inconveniences regarding pain and discomfort levels, the accomplishment of everyday activities (leisure and school), and the performance of functions, such as chewing and speech. However, treatment time and costs were significantly lower in orthodontic therapy with fixed appliances. Sequence generation, allocation concealment, and complete outcome data were not a concern. Blinding of participants or personnel was not reported in any article, and blinding of the assessor was a concern in 2 articles. Selective reporting was a concern in 2 articles. The certainty of the evidence for overjet correction was very low.
CONCLUSION: Removable and fixed orthodontic devices are efficacious for overjet correction in non-skeletal anterior crossbite. However, treatment time and costs are lower for cases treated with fixed devices.