Use of electrical stimulation for accelerated orthodontics in humans: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Q3 Dentistry
Shubhobrata Dutta, Tanisha Rout, Amol Somaji Patil, Sonakashee Deshmukh
{"title":"Use of electrical stimulation for accelerated orthodontics in humans: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Shubhobrata Dutta, Tanisha Rout, Amol Somaji Patil, Sonakashee Deshmukh","doi":"10.1038/s41432-024-00997-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The main objective of this systematic review is to comprehensively evaluate all the relevant studies to evaluate the effectiveness of electrical stimulation to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement in human patients. Using a suitable search strategy, various databases like PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus and Google Scholar were surveyed for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs); after which a hand search of related orthodontic journals was completed. The risk of bias of studies was checked using Cochrane’s ROB-2 tool. The quality of evidence of the included studies was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Rate of orthodontic tooth movement was compared and thus efficiency of electrical stimulation to accelerate tooth movement was assessed. Meta-analysis was done on 2 studies out of the 4; rate of orthodontic tooth movement was compared at two time periods after start of treatment (3rd month and 5th month) with standardized mean difference (SMD) as summary estimate, with p < 0.05 denoting statistical significance. Publication bias was checked using a funnel plot. Via exploration of the online databases and hand searching, 1080 studies were found after removing duplicates. After full text assessment, 13 studies in total were selected that used electrical stimulation, out of which 4 studies were included in the qualitative analysis as they met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis was done for 3rd month and 5th month with SMD as 0.69(−1.26–0.12) and 1.64(−3.44–0.16), respectively. The strength of evidence in the meta-analysis is moderate. There was no publication bias as shown by funnel plot. The studies included showed increased risk of selection and performance bias. Also due to the limited number of studies available, there was difficulty in reaching definitive conclusions. The meta-analysis showed a significant difference among the control and experimental group for the 3rd month. Even though a positive correlation is found between electrical stimulation and acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement, it is advised to conduct further studies, particularly with human participants, to establish a more conclusive outcome. This review has received no funding. The protocol for the study was registered in the Prospective Registration of Systematic Review (PROSPERO)(CRD42023495077).","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":"25 3","pages":"165-165"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-00997-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The main objective of this systematic review is to comprehensively evaluate all the relevant studies to evaluate the effectiveness of electrical stimulation to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement in human patients. Using a suitable search strategy, various databases like PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus and Google Scholar were surveyed for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs); after which a hand search of related orthodontic journals was completed. The risk of bias of studies was checked using Cochrane’s ROB-2 tool. The quality of evidence of the included studies was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Rate of orthodontic tooth movement was compared and thus efficiency of electrical stimulation to accelerate tooth movement was assessed. Meta-analysis was done on 2 studies out of the 4; rate of orthodontic tooth movement was compared at two time periods after start of treatment (3rd month and 5th month) with standardized mean difference (SMD) as summary estimate, with p < 0.05 denoting statistical significance. Publication bias was checked using a funnel plot. Via exploration of the online databases and hand searching, 1080 studies were found after removing duplicates. After full text assessment, 13 studies in total were selected that used electrical stimulation, out of which 4 studies were included in the qualitative analysis as they met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis was done for 3rd month and 5th month with SMD as 0.69(−1.26–0.12) and 1.64(−3.44–0.16), respectively. The strength of evidence in the meta-analysis is moderate. There was no publication bias as shown by funnel plot. The studies included showed increased risk of selection and performance bias. Also due to the limited number of studies available, there was difficulty in reaching definitive conclusions. The meta-analysis showed a significant difference among the control and experimental group for the 3rd month. Even though a positive correlation is found between electrical stimulation and acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement, it is advised to conduct further studies, particularly with human participants, to establish a more conclusive outcome. This review has received no funding. The protocol for the study was registered in the Prospective Registration of Systematic Review (PROSPERO)(CRD42023495077).

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

利用电刺激加速人类牙齿矫正:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:本系统综述的主要目的是全面评估所有相关研究,以评价电刺激对加速人类患者牙齿矫正移动的有效性:采用适当的搜索策略,在 PubMed、CENTRAL、Scopus 和 Google Scholar 等各种数据库中搜索相关的随机对照试验 (RCT),然后对相关的正畸期刊进行人工搜索。使用 Cochrane 的 ROB-2 工具检查了研究的偏倚风险。采用建议、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)框架对纳入研究的证据质量进行了评估。比较了正畸牙齿移动的速度,从而评估了电刺激加速牙齿移动的效率。对 4 项研究中的 2 项进行了 Meta 分析;比较了治疗开始后两个时间段(第 3 个月和第 5 个月)的牙齿矫正移动率,以标准化平均差 (SMD) 作为汇总估计值,P 结果:通过在线数据库搜索和人工搜索,在去除重复内容后,共找到 1080 项研究。经过全文评估,共选出 13 篇使用电刺激的研究,其中 4 篇符合纳入标准,因此被纳入定性分析。对第 3 个月和第 5 个月进行了荟萃分析,SMD 分别为 0.69(-1.26-0.12)和 1.64(-3.44-0.16)。荟萃分析的证据强度为中等。讨论:讨论:纳入的研究显示,选择偏倚和表现偏倚的风险增加。此外,由于研究数量有限,很难得出明确的结论。荟萃分析表明,对照组和实验组在第 3 个月存在显著差异:尽管发现电刺激与牙齿矫正移动加速之间存在正相关,但建议开展进一步的研究,特别是以人为参与者的研究,以确定更确切的结果:本综述未获得任何资助。研究方案已在系统性综述前瞻性注册(PROSPERO)(CRD42023495077)中注册。
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
Evidence-based dentistry
Evidence-based dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Evidence-Based Dentistry delivers the best available evidence on the latest developments in oral health. We evaluate the evidence and provide guidance concerning the value of the author''s conclusions. We keep dentistry up to date with new approaches, exploring a wide range of the latest developments through an accessible expert commentary. Original papers and relevant publications are condensed into digestible summaries, drawing attention to the current methods and findings. We are a central resource for the most cutting edge and relevant issues concerning the evidence-based approach in dentistry today. Evidence-Based Dentistry is published by Springer Nature on behalf of the British Dental Association.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信