{"title":"51 - Comparison between nance button and transpalatal arch for preventing anchorage loss in orthodontics. Systematic review","authors":"Ines Perez , Isadora Valbuena , Fernanda Vargas , Caroline Lynch","doi":"10.1016/j.ejwf.2025.07.055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Maintaining posterior anchorage during orthodontic treatments involving extractions remains a clinically relevant challenge, particularly in cases requiring en-masse retraction of the anterior segment. Anchorage refers to the resistance to unwanted tooth movement, and its loss can significantly compromise treatment outcomes. This systematic review, conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, aimed to compare the effectiveness of the Nance button and the transpalatal arch (TPA) as conventional intraoral anchorage devices to prevent anchorage loss in patients requiring maximum anchorage. A comprehensive literature search was performed using the Web of Science and Ovid platforms, accessing databases including PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and SciELO. Search terms included “Nance button,” “transpalatal arch,” “anchorage,” “maximum anchorage,” “tooth migration,” and “orthodontic appliance,” with inclusion criteria limited to studies published between 2005 and 2025. From an initial pool of 22 articles, 10 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. These comprised randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, retrospective studies, and systematic reviews with meta-analyses. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using GRADE, ROBINS-I, RoB 2, and AMSTAR 2 tools. The results confirm that both devices are effective, but not equivalent. For sagittal anchorage purposes, the Nance button has proven to be more effective due to its greater rigidity and ability to limit mesial molar displacement. The TPA is more suitable when transverse and rotational control is required. The device should be selected based on the specific biomechanical requirements of the treatment rather than general criteria. Differentiated use of both appliances should align with the clinical needs of each case, highlighting the importance of individualized orthodontic planning. Further controlled clinical studies are recommended.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":43456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists","volume":"14 6","pages":"Page 416"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212443825001109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Maintaining posterior anchorage during orthodontic treatments involving extractions remains a clinically relevant challenge, particularly in cases requiring en-masse retraction of the anterior segment. Anchorage refers to the resistance to unwanted tooth movement, and its loss can significantly compromise treatment outcomes. This systematic review, conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, aimed to compare the effectiveness of the Nance button and the transpalatal arch (TPA) as conventional intraoral anchorage devices to prevent anchorage loss in patients requiring maximum anchorage. A comprehensive literature search was performed using the Web of Science and Ovid platforms, accessing databases including PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and SciELO. Search terms included “Nance button,” “transpalatal arch,” “anchorage,” “maximum anchorage,” “tooth migration,” and “orthodontic appliance,” with inclusion criteria limited to studies published between 2005 and 2025. From an initial pool of 22 articles, 10 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. These comprised randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, retrospective studies, and systematic reviews with meta-analyses. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using GRADE, ROBINS-I, RoB 2, and AMSTAR 2 tools. The results confirm that both devices are effective, but not equivalent. For sagittal anchorage purposes, the Nance button has proven to be more effective due to its greater rigidity and ability to limit mesial molar displacement. The TPA is more suitable when transverse and rotational control is required. The device should be selected based on the specific biomechanical requirements of the treatment rather than general criteria. Differentiated use of both appliances should align with the clinical needs of each case, highlighting the importance of individualized orthodontic planning. Further controlled clinical studies are recommended.
在包括拔牙在内的正畸治疗中,维持后牙支抗仍然是一个临床相关的挑战,特别是在需要大规模前段内收的病例中。固支指的是对不需要的牙齿运动的抵抗,它的丢失会严重影响治疗效果。本系统综述根据PRISMA指南进行,目的是比较Nance按钮和经腭弓(TPA)作为传统的口内支抗装置在需要最大支抗的患者中防止支抗丢失的有效性。使用Web of Science和Ovid平台进行全面的文献检索,访问数据库包括PubMed/MEDLINE、Embase、Scopus和SciELO。搜索词包括“Nance按钮”、“经腭弓”、“锚固”、“最大锚固”、“牙齿移动”和“正畸器具”,纳入标准仅限于2005年至2025年间发表的研究。从最初的22篇文章中,有10篇研究被纳入定性综合。这些研究包括随机和非随机临床试验、回顾性研究和带有荟萃分析的系统评价。采用GRADE、ROBINS-I、rob2和AMSTAR 2工具评估方法学质量和偏倚风险。结果证实这两种方法都是有效的,但并不等同。对于矢状支抗的目的,Nance扣已被证明是更有效的,因为它具有更大的刚性和限制近端磨牙位移的能力。当需要横向和旋转控制时,TPA更适合。器械的选择应基于治疗的具体生物力学要求,而不是一般标准。两种矫治器的不同使用应符合每个病例的临床需要,强调个性化正畸计划的重要性。建议进一步的对照临床研究。