Affiliation:
1. Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil
Abstract
Summary
Background/Objective
To assess the mean maxillary molar distalization time with non-compliance intraoral distalizing appliances.
Search methods and selection criteria
Database search included PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, Lilacs, and a partial grey literature through Google Scholar and OpenGrey. The search was performed until May 2017 and updated on February 2019, without limitations regarding publication year or language. Controlled clinical trials (randomized and non-randomized prospective studies) reporting duration of maxillary molar distalization of Class II patients treated with intraoral distalizers were included.
Data collection and analysis
For the trials’ quality assessment, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Cochrane Collaboration’s ROBINS-I tool were used for the randomized controlled trials and non-randomized prospective studies, respectively. Database research, risk of bias (RoB) assessment, and extraction of data were performed by two independent investigators, with inclusion of a third reviewer, if disagreements emerged. Data was combined through a random-effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses regarding side of force application, type of anchorage, amount of molar distalization, and sensitivity analysis comparing study designs were also performed. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE and SORT approaches.
Results
Nine studies were included in the qualitative analysis; however, a meta-analysis was performed with only four studies, due to the presence of high RoB in the other studies. The random-effects meta-analysis assumes that the mean distalization time with distalizers is 8.34 months (95% confidence interval: 6.10, 10.58). Another meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between distalization time and the type of anchorage (conventional or skeletal), resulting in no significant difference. Both meta-analyses presented low-quality evidence.
Limitations
The major limitation of this meta-analysis is the fact that distalization time can be affected by a great range of factors.
Conclusions and implications
Correction of a half-to-full cusp Class II molar relationship with intraoral distalizers can be achieved in 8.34 months, and this distalization time may not be affected by the kind of anchorage used.
Registration
The protocol for this systematic review was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 and was registered at PROSPERO database (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017068737). This systematic review is reported according to the PRISMA statement.
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Reference50 articles.
1. Correction of class II malocclusion with class II elastics: a systematic review;Janson;American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,2013
2. Noncompliance maxillary molar distalization with the first class appliance: a randomized controlled trial;Papadopoulos;American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,2010
3. Intraoral distalizer effects with conventional and skeletal anchorage: a meta-analysis;Grec;American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,2013
4. Comparative distalization effects of Jones jig and pendulum appliances;Patel;American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,2009
5. The use of magnets to move molars distally;Gianelly;American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,1989
Cited by
10 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献