Comparison between orthodontic and surgical uprighting of mandibular molars: a systematic review.

IF 3 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Angle Orthodontist Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.2319/041822-298.1

Frantzeska Karkazi, Nikolaos Karvelas, Antigoni Alexiou, Sotiria Gizani, Apostolos I Tsolakis

{"title":"Comparison between orthodontic and surgical uprighting of mandibular molars: a systematic review.","authors":"Frantzeska Karkazi, Nikolaos Karvelas, Antigoni Alexiou, Sotiria Gizani, Apostolos I Tsolakis","doi":"10.2319/041822-298.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To evaluate and compare the efficiency of orthodontic treatment and surgical uprighting of first and second mandibular molars.Materials and methods: An electronic literature search in PubMed, Science Direct, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and Google Scholar, as well as a hand search was conducted by two independent researchers to identify relevant articles up to January 2022. In addition, a manual search was done that included article reference lists, grey literature, and dissertations. The risk of bias of the included prospective and retrospective studies was assessed with the Risk Of Bias Tool In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool.Results: A total of six nonrandomized clinical trials (non-RCT) evaluating the efficiency of mandibular molar orthodontic and/or surgical uprighting were included. The quality analysis showed certain defects of the Non-RCTs included and, according to the criteria used, the majority of the articles were judged to be of moderate quality.Conclusions: Based on the evidence, orthodontic and surgical uprighting appear to be effective treatment methods for mandibular molars. Surgical uprighting may be associated with more complications than orthodontic uprighting. However, the existing literature on the subject is limited, heterogeneous, and methodologically limited. Therefore, the outcomes should be interpreted carefully.","PeriodicalId":50790,"journal":{"name":"Angle Orthodontist","volume":"93 1","pages":"104-110"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Angle Orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/041822-298.1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate and compare the efficiency of orthodontic treatment and surgical uprighting of first and second mandibular molars.

Materials and methods: An electronic literature search in PubMed, Science Direct, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and Google Scholar, as well as a hand search was conducted by two independent researchers to identify relevant articles up to January 2022. In addition, a manual search was done that included article reference lists, grey literature, and dissertations. The risk of bias of the included prospective and retrospective studies was assessed with the Risk Of Bias Tool In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool.

Results: A total of six nonrandomized clinical trials (non-RCT) evaluating the efficiency of mandibular molar orthodontic and/or surgical uprighting were included. The quality analysis showed certain defects of the Non-RCTs included and, according to the criteria used, the majority of the articles were judged to be of moderate quality.

Conclusions: Based on the evidence, orthodontic and surgical uprighting appear to be effective treatment methods for mandibular molars. Surgical uprighting may be associated with more complications than orthodontic uprighting. However, the existing literature on the subject is limited, heterogeneous, and methodologically limited. Therefore, the outcomes should be interpreted carefully.

查看原文本刊更多论文

正畸与手术矫正下颌磨牙的比较:系统综述。

目的:评价和比较第一、第二下颌磨牙正畸治疗和手术扶正的效果。材料和方法:由两位独立研究人员在PubMed、Science Direct、Embase、Scopus、Web of Science、Cochrane Library、LILACS和Google Scholar中进行电子文献检索，以及手工检索，以确定截至2022年1月的相关文章。此外，还进行了人工检索，包括文章参考列表、灰色文献和论文。采用非随机干预研究的偏倚风险评估工具(ROBINS-I)评估纳入的前瞻性和回顾性研究的偏倚风险。结果:共纳入6项评估下颌磨牙正畸和/或手术扶正效果的非随机临床试验(non-RCT)。质量分析显示纳入的非随机对照试验存在一定缺陷，根据使用的标准，大多数文章被判定为中等质量。结论:有证据表明，正畸和手术矫治是治疗下颌磨牙的有效方法。手术直立可能比正畸直立有更多的并发症。然而，关于这一主题的现有文献是有限的，异构的，方法上的限制。因此，应该仔细解释结果。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Angle Orthodontist 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

6.40

自引率

5.90%

发文量

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： The Angle Orthodontist is the official publication of the Edward H. Angle Society of Orthodontists and is published bimonthly in January, March, May, July, September and November by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation Inc. The Angle Orthodontist is the only major journal in orthodontics with a non-commercial, non-profit publisher -- The E. H. Angle Education and Research Foundation. We value our freedom to operate exclusively in the best interests of our readers and authors. Our website www.angle.org is completely free and open to all visitors.