Clinical effectiveness of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices for skeletal Class III malocclusion: Systematic review and network meta-analysis
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Objective: This study aimed to estimate the clinical effects of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices by using a network meta-analysis. Methods: We searched seven databases for randomized and controlled clinical trials that compared bone-anchored maxillary protraction with tooth-anchored maxillary protraction interventions or untreated groups up to May 2021. After literature selection, data extraction, and quality assessment, we calculated the mean differences, 95% confidence intervals, and surface under the cumulative ranking scores of eleven indicators. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software with the GeMTC package based on the Bayesian framework. Results: Six interventions and 667 patients were involved in 18 studies. In comparison with the tooth-anchored groups, the bone-anchored groups showed significantly more increases in Sella-Nasion-Subspinale (°), Subspinale-Nasion-Supramentale(°) and significantly fewer increases in mandibular plane angle and the labial proclination angle of upper incisors. In comparison with the control group, Sella-Nasion-Supramentale(°) decreased without any statistical significance in all treated groups. IMPA (angle of lower incisors and mandibular plane) decreased in groups with facemasks and increased in other groups. Conclusions: Bone-anchored maxillary protraction can promote greater maxillary forward movement and correct the Class III intermaxillary relationship better, in addition to showing less clockwise rotation of mandible and labial proclination of upper incisors. However, strengthening anchorage could not inhibit mandibular growth better and the lingual inclination of lower incisors caused by the treatment is related to the use of a facemask.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to estimate the clinical effects of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices by using a network meta-analysis. Methods: We searched seven databases for randomized and controlled clinical trials that compared bone-anchored maxillary protraction with tooth-anchored maxillary protraction interventions or untreated groups up to May 2021. After literature selection, data extraction, and quality assessment, we calculated the mean differences, 95% confidence intervals, and surface under the cumulative ranking scores of eleven indicators. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software with the GeMTC package based on the Bayesian framework. Results: Six interventions and 667 patients were involved in 18 studies. In comparison with the tooth-anchored groups, the bone-anchored groups showed significantly more increases in Sella-Nasion-Subspinale (°), Subspinale-Nasion-Supramentale(°) and significantly fewer increases in mandibular plane angle and the labial proclination angle of upper incisors. In comparison with the control group, Sella-Nasion-Supramentale(°) decreased without any statistical significance in all treated groups. IMPA (angle of lower incisors and mandibular plane) decreased in groups with facemasks and increased in other groups. Conclusions: Bone-anchored maxillary protraction can promote greater maxillary forward movement and correct the Class III intermaxillary relationship better, in addition to showing less clockwise rotation of mandible and labial proclination of upper incisors. However, strengthening anchorage could not inhibit mandibular growth better and the lingual inclination of lower incisors caused by the treatment is related to the use of a facemask.
참고문헌 (30)
- Alhammadi MS, "Global distribution of malocclusion traits: a systematic review", Dental Press J Orthod, 23, pp.40~ (2018)
- Ngan PW, "Treatment response and long-term dentofacial adaptations to maxillary expansion and protraction", Semin Orthod, 3, pp.255~264 (1997)
- Lin Y, "Stability of maxillary protraction therapy in children with Class III malocclusion : a systematic review and meta-analysis", Clin Oral Investig, 22, pp.2639~2652 (2018)
- Koh SD, "Comparison of skeletal anchored facemask and tooth-borne facemask according to vertical skeletal pattern and growth stage", Angle Orthod, 84, pp.628~633 (2014)
- Chen Y, "Analysis of the efficacy of maxillary protraction for skeletal Class III with maxillary retrusion in different age groups", J Dent Prev Treat, 7, pp.324~326 (2007)
- Kim JH, "The effectiveness of protraction face mask therapy : a meta-analysis", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 115, pp.675~685 (1999)
- Erdal Bozkaya, "Zygomatic miniplates for skeletal anchorage in orthopedic correction of Class III malocclusion: A controlled clinical trial", 대한치과교정학회지, 47(2), pp.118~129 (2017), 대한치과교정학회
- de Souza RA, "Maxillary protraction with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask versus skeletal anchorage with mini-implants in class III patients : a non-randomized clinical trial", Prog Orthod, 20, pp.35~ (2019)
- Shi H, "Meta-analysis of the efficacy of bone anchorage and maxillary facemask protraction devices in treating skeletal class III malocclusion in adolescents", Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi, 38, pp.69~74 (2020)
- Lee NK, "The short-term treatment effects of face mask therapy in Class III patients based on the anchorage device : miniplates vs rapid maxillary expansion", Angle Orthod, 82, pp.846~852 (2012)
- Seiryu M, "A comparative assessment of orthodontic treatment outcomes of mild skeletal Class III malocclusion between facemask and facemask in combination with a miniscrew for anchorage in growing patients: a single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial", Angle Orthod, 90, pp.3~12 (2020)
- Ngan P, "Comparison of two maxillary protraction protocols : tooth-borne versus bone-anchored protraction facemask treatment", Prog Orthod, 16, pp.26~ (2015)
- Mills EJ, "Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis", BMJ, 346, pp.f2914~ (2013)
- Elnagar MH, "Comparative evaluation of 2 skeletally anchored maxillary protraction protocols", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 150, pp.751~762 (2016)
- Ge YS, "Dentofacial effects of two facemask therapies for maxillary protraction", Angle Orthod, 82, pp.1083~1091 (2012)
- Jamilian A, "The effects of miniscrew with Class III traction in growing patients with maxillary deficiency", Int J Orthod Milwaukee, 22, pp.25~30 (2011)
- Ağlarcı C, "Comparison of shortterm effects between face mask and skeletal anchorage therapy with intermaxillary elastics in patients with maxillary retrognathia", Eur J Orthod, 38, pp.313~323 (2016)
- Lee SH, "Comparison of skeletal anchorage and tooth-borne maxillary protraction followed by fixed appliance in Class III malocclusion", Eur J Orthod, 42, pp.193~199 (2020)
- Sar C, "Dentofacial effects of skeletal anchored treatment modalities for the correction of maxillary retrognathia", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 145, pp.41~54 (2014)
- Willmann JH, "Early Class III treatment with Hybrid-Hyrax-Facemask in comparison to Hybrid-Hyrax-Mentoplate-skeletal and dental outcomes", Prog Orthod, 19, pp.42~ (2018)
- Cha BK, "Skeletal anchorage for orthopedic correction of growing Class III patients", Semin Orthod, 17, pp.124~137 (2011)
- Eid OM, "Maxillary protraction using orthodontic miniplates in correction of Class III malocclusion during growth", J World Fed Orthod, 5, pp.100~106 (2016)
- Tripathi T, "A comparative evaluation of skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes with skeletal anchored and conventional facemask protraction therapy", J Orthod Sci, 5, pp.92~99 (2016)
- Sar C, "Comparative evaluation of maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 139, pp.636~649 (2011)
- Nienkemper M, "Effectiveness of maxillary protraction using a hybrid hyrax-facemask combination : a controlled clinical study", Angle Orthod, 85, pp.764~770 (2015)
- Foersch M, "Effectiveness of maxillary protraction using facemask with or without maxillary expansion : a systematic review and meta-analysis", Clin Oral Investig, 19, pp.1181~1192 (2015)
- Lee WC, "Long-term maxillary three dimensional changes following maxillary protraction with or without expansion : a systematic review and meta-analysis", J Dent Sci, 16, pp.168~177 (2021)
- Zhou X, "Three-dimensional finite element analysis of mandible with different forces of chin-cup traction", Beijing J Stomatol, 3, pp.125~129 (2004)
- Ito Y, "The orthopaedic effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction in a beagle model", Eur J Orthod, 36, pp.632~640 (2014)
- Abu Alhaija ES, "Long-term effect of the chincap on hard and soft tissues", Eur J Orthod, 21, pp.291~298 (1999)