The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Which anchorage device is the best during retraction of anterior teeth? An overview of systematic reviews

  • Yassir, Yassir A. (Orthodontic Department, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad) ;
  • Nabbat, Sarah A. (Ministry of Health) ;
  • McIntyre, Grant T. (School of Dentistry, University of Dundee) ;
  • Bearn, David R. (School of Dentistry, University of Dundee)
  • Received : 2021.06.16
  • Accepted : 2021.11.17
  • Published : 2022.05.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the available evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of different types of anchorage devices. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of different electronic databases was conducted for systematic reviews investigating different anchorage methods published up to April 15, 2021. Any ongoing systematic reviews were searched using PROSPERO, and a grey literature search was undertaken using Google Scholar and OpenGrey. No language restriction was applied. Screening, quality assessment, and data extraction were performed independently by two authors. Information was categorized and narratively synthesized for the key findings from moderate- and high-quality reviews. Results: Fourteen systematic reviews were included (11 were of moderate/high quality). Skeletal anchorage with miniscrews was associated with less anchorage loss (and sometimes with anchorage gain). Similarly, skeletal anchorage was more effective in retracting anterior teeth and intruding incisors and molars, resulting in minor vertical skeletal changes and improvements in the soft tissue profile. However, insufficient evidence was obtained for the preference of any anchorage method in terms of the duration of treatment, number of appointments, quality of treatment, patient perception, or adverse effects. The effectiveness of skeletal anchorage can be enhanced when: directly loaded, used in the mandible rather than the maxilla, used buccally rather than palatally, using dual rather than single miniscrews, used for en-masse retraction, and in adults. Conclusions: The level of evidence regarding anchorage effectiveness is moderate. Nevertheless, compared to conventional anchorage, skeletal anchorage can be used with more anchorage preservation. Further high-quality randomized clinical trials are required to confirm these findings.

Keywords

References

  1. Wahl N. Orthodontics in 3 millennia. Chapter 15: skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:707-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.04.015
  2. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. St. Louis: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2006.
  3. Melsen B, Bosch C. Different approaches to anchorage: a survey and an evaluation. Angle Orthod 1997;67:23-30.
  4. Lai EH, Yao CC, Chang JZ, Chen I, Chen YJ. Three-dimensional dental model analysis of treatment outcomes for protrusive maxillary dentition: comparison of headgear, miniscrew, and miniplate skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:636-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.017
  5. Cole WA. Accuracy of patient reporting as an indication of headgear compliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:419-23. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.122369
  6. Samuels RH, Willner F, Knox J, Jones ML. A national survey of orthodontic facebow injuries in the UK and Eire. Br J Orthod 1996;23:11-20. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.23.1.11
  7. Blum-Hareuveni T, Rehany U, Rumelt S. Blinding endophthalmitis from orthodontic headgear. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2774-5. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200412233512623
  8. Feldmann I, Bondemark L. Orthodontic anchorage: a systematic review. Angle Orthod 2006;76:493-501.
  9. Kuroda S, Yamada K, Deguchi T, Kyung HM, Takano-Yamamoto T. Class II malocclusion treated with miniscrew anchorage: comparison with traditional orthodontic mechanics outcomes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:302-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.038
  10. Park HS, Kwon TG. Sliding mechanics with micro-screw implant anchorage. Angle Orthod 2004;74:703-10.
  11. Odman J, Lekholm U, Jemt T, Thilander B. Osseointegrated implants as orthodontic anchorage in the treatment of partially edentulous adult patients. Eur J Orthod 1994;16:187-201. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/16.3.187
  12. Ren Y. Mini-implants for direct or indirect orthodontic anchorage. Evid Based Dent 2009;10:113. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400687
  13. Heo W, Nahm DS, Baek SH. En masse retraction and two-step retraction of maxillary anterior teeth in adult Class I women. A comparison of anchorage loss. Angle Orthod 2007;77:973-8. https://doi.org/10.2319/111706-464.1
  14. Xu TM, Zhang X, Oh HS, Boyd RL, Korn EL, Baumrind S. Randomized clinical trial comparing control of maxillary anchorage with 2 retraction techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:544.e1-9; discussion 544-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.07.004
  15. Bobak V, Christiansen RL, Hollister SJ, Kohn DH. Stress-related molar responses to the transpalatal arch: a finite element analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:512-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(97)90100-1
  16. Kojima Y, Fukui H. Effects of transpalatal arch on molar movement produced by mesial force: a finite element simulation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:335.e1-7; discussion 335-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.03.011
  17. Liu YH, Ding WH, Liu J, Li Q. Comparison of the differences in cephalometric parameters after active orthodontic treatment applying mini-screw implants or transpalatal arches in adult patients with bialveolar dental protrusion. J Oral Rehabil 2009;36:687-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01976.x
  18. Sharma M, Sharma V, Khanna B. Mini-screw implant or transpalatal arch-mediated anchorage reinforcement during canine retraction: a randomized clinical trial. J Orthod 2012;39:102-10. https://doi.org/10.1179/14653121226878
  19. Al-Sibaie S, Hajeer MY. Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 2014;36:275-83. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjt046
  20. Li F, Hu HK, Chen JW, Liu ZP, Li GF, He SS, et al. Comparison of anchorage capacity between implant and headgear during anterior segment retraction. Angle Orthod 2011;81:915-22. https://doi.org/10.2319/101410-603.1
  21. Papadopoulos MA, Papageorgiou SN, Zogakis IP. Clinical effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2011;90:969-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034511409236
  22. Jambi S, Walsh T, Sandler J, Benson PE, Skeggs RM, O'Brien KD. Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;2014:CD005098.
  23. Antoszewska-Smith J, Sarul M, Lyczek J, Konopka T, Kawala B. Effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrew implants in anchorage reinforcement during enmasse retraction: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:440-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.08.029
  24. Diar-Bakirly S, Feres MF, Saltaji H, Flores-Mir C, El-Bialy T. Effectiveness of the transpalatal arch in controlling orthodontic anchorage in maxillary premolar extraction cases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Angle Orthod 2017;87:147-58. https://doi.org/10.2319/021216-120.1
  25. Jayaratne YSN, Uribe F, Janakiraman N. Maxillary incisors changes during space closure with conventional and skeletal anchorage methods: a systematic review. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent 2017;51(3 Suppl 1):S90-101.
  26. Xu Y, Xie J. Comparison of the effects of mini-implant and traditional anchorage on patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Angle Orthod 2017;87:320-7. https://doi.org/10.2319/051016-375.1
  27. Becker K, Pliska A, Busch C, Wilmes B, Wolf M, Drescher D. Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent 2018;4:35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-018-0144-4
  28. Khlef HN, Hajeer MY, Ajaj MA, Heshmeh O. Evaluation of treatment outcomes of En masse retraction with temporary skeletal anchorage devices in comparison with two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with dentoalveolar protrusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Contemp Clin Dent 2018;9:513-23. https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_661_18
  29. Khlef HN, Hajeer MY, Ajaj MA, Heshmeh O. Enmasse retraction of upper anterior teeth in adult patients with maxillary or bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019;20:113-27. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2485
  30. Alharbi F, Almuzian M, Bearn D. Anchorage effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrews compared to headgear and transpalatal arches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Odontol Scand 2019; 77:88-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016357.2018.1508742
  31. Liu Y, Yang ZJ, Zhou J, Xiong P, Wang Q, Yang Y, et al. Comparison of anchorage efficiency of orthodontic mini-implant and conventional anchorage reinforcement in patients requiring maximum orthodontic anchorage: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2020;20:101401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2020.101401
  32. Tian H, Xie C, Lin M, Yang H, Ren A. Effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction and anchorage preservation during the two-step technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health 2020;20:278. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01271-8
  33. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010;8:336-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
  34. Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011;11:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-15
  35. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017;358:j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008
  36. Becker L, Oxman AD. Overviews of reviews. In: Higgins JP, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Oxford: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2009.
  37. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Patil S. Treatment effects of mini-implants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:18-29.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.025
  38. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ 1997;156:1411-6.