Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Aug 19;(8):CD005098. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005098.pub3.

Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods.

Author information

1
School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester, UK, M15 6FH.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The term anchorage in orthodontic treatment refers to methods of controlling unwanted tooth movement. This is provided either by anchor sites within the mouth, such as the teeth and the palate, or from outside the mouth (headgear). Recently, new methods of providing anchorage have been developed using orthodontic implants which are surgically inserted into the bone in the mouth. This is termed surgical anchorage. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the effects of surgical anchorage techniques compared to conventional anchorage in the prevention of unwanted tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment by evaluating the mesiodistal movement of upper first molar teeth. A secondary objective was to compare the effects of one type of surgical anchorage with another.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 28 October 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 28 October 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 28 October 2013). We handsearched key international orthodontic and dental journals, and searched the trial database ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

Randomised controlled trials comparing surgical anchorage with conventional anchorage in orthodontic patients. Trials comparing two types of surgical anchorage were also included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

At least two review authors independently and in duplicate extracted data and carried out risk of bias assessments. We contacted study authors to clarify aspects of study design and conduct, and to obtain unreported data.

MAIN RESULTS:

Fourteen new studies were added in this update resulting in a total of 15 studies reporting data from 561 randomised patients. The studies were conducted in Europe, India, China, South Korea and the USA. The age range of patients was commonly restricted to adolescents or young adults, however the participants of two studies were from a much wider age range (12 to 54 years). The distribution of males and females was similar in eight of the studies, with a predominance of female patients in seven studies.Eight studies were assessed to be at high overall risk of bias; six studies at unclear risk of bias; one study at low risk of bias.Ten studies with 407 randomised and 390 analysed patients compared surgical anchorage with conventional anchorage for the primary outcome of mesiodistal movement of upper first molars. We carried out a random-effects model meta-analysis for the seven studies that fully reported this outcome. There was strong evidence of an effect of surgical anchorage on this outcome. Compared with conventional anchorage, surgical anchorage was more effective in the reinforcement of anchorage by 1.68 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.27 mm to -1.09 mm; seven studies, 308 participants analysed) with moderate quality of evidence (one study at high overall risk of bias, five studies at unclear risk of bias, one study at low risk of bias). This result should be interpreted with some caution, however, as there was a substantial degree of heterogeneity for this comparison. There was no evidence of a difference in overall duration of treatment between surgical and conventional anchorage (-0.15 years; 95% CI -0.37 years to 0.07 years; three studies, 111 analysed patients) with low quality of evidence (one study at high overall risk of bias and two studies at unclear risk of bias). Information on patient-reported outcomes such as pain and acceptability was limited and inconclusive.When direct comparisons were made between two types of surgical anchorage, there was a lack of evidence to suggest that any one technique was better than another.No included studies reported adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

There is moderate quality evidence that reinforcement of anchorage is more effective with surgical anchorage than conventional anchorage, and that results from mini-screw implants are particularly promising. While surgical anchorage is not associated with the inherent risks and compliance issues related to extraoral headgear, none of the included studies reported on harms of surgical or conventional anchorage.

PMID:
25135678
PMCID:
PMC6464832
DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD005098.pub3
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center