The journal of evidence-based dental practice · 2020
Comparison of Anchorage Efficiency of Orthodontic Mini-implant and Conventional Anchorage Reinforcement in Patients Requiring Maximum Orthodontic Anchorage: 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.
Liu Yan, Yang Zhen-Jin, Zhou Jing, Xiong Ping, Wang Quan, Yang Yan, Hu Yu, Hu Jiang-Tian
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of mini-implants (MIs) and conventional anchorage appliances used for orthodontic anchorage reinforcement in patients with class I or II malocclusion with bimaxillary protrusion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature search was conducted through PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane from inception to July 2018. The following Medical Subject Heading terms were used for the search string: "skeletal anchorage", "temporary anchorage devices", "miniscrew implant", "mini-implant", "micro-implant". Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of horizontal and vertical movements of teeth from baseline were used for comparison.
RESULTS: A total of 12 studies were included in the final analysis. MI group significantly lowered mesial movement of molars compared to conventional anchorage group (SMD = -1.48, 95% CI = -2.25 to -0.72; P = .0002). There was significantly higher retraction of incisors in the MI group than in the conventional group (SMD = -0.47 mm, 95% CI = -0.87 to -0.07; P = .02). No significant difference was seen in vertical movement of molars (SMD = -0.21 mm, 95% CI = -0.87 to 0.45; P = .52) and incisors (SMD = -0.30, 95% CI = -1.18 to 0.58; P = .5).
CONCLUSION: MIs seem to be more effective than the conventional anchorage devices in terms of minimizing unintended mesial movement of molars with maximum retraction of anterior teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature search was conducted through PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane from inception to July 2018. The following Medical Subject Heading terms were used for the search string: "skeletal anchorage", "temporary anchorage devices", "miniscrew implant", "mini-implant", "micro-implant". Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of horizontal and vertical movements of teeth from baseline were used for comparison.
RESULTS: A total of 12 studies were included in the final analysis. MI group significantly lowered mesial movement of molars compared to conventional anchorage group (SMD = -1.48, 95% CI = -2.25 to -0.72; P = .0002). There was significantly higher retraction of incisors in the MI group than in the conventional group (SMD = -0.47 mm, 95% CI = -0.87 to -0.07; P = .02). No significant difference was seen in vertical movement of molars (SMD = -0.21 mm, 95% CI = -0.87 to 0.45; P = .52) and incisors (SMD = -0.30, 95% CI = -1.18 to 0.58; P = .5).
CONCLUSION: MIs seem to be more effective than the conventional anchorage devices in terms of minimizing unintended mesial movement of molars with maximum retraction of anterior teeth.