{"title":"近端间牙釉质复位在儿童和青少年正畸治疗中的临床效果:系统回顾。","authors":"M Khoury-Absawi, F Nasrallah, S Srouji, S Einy","doi":"10.1007/s40368-025-01081-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the clinical outcomes of interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) in the permanent dentition amongst children and adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment, focusing on enamel integrity, periodontal health and dimensional changes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted using Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and manual research to identify publications between 1970 and October 2024 reporting on IPR outcomes in patients aged 8-17 years. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria: two cohort studies, one case-control study, and seven case reports. Most assessed immediately post-treatment, and few reported follow-up ranging from 3 to 15 years (mean: 5.71 years; median: 3.67 years). Clinical parameters such as enamel integrity, caries incidence, and periodontal status were used as proxies for safety. Data on IPR indications, treatment techniques, and clinical outcomes were analysed. Risk of bias was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa and Murad tool.</p><p><strong>Prospero id: </strong>CRD420251007607.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 10 articles analysed included 61 participants (mean age: 13.4 ± 1.71 years). Primary IPR indications were dental crowding (57.4%), followed by tooth reshaping (42.6%) and tooth-size-arch-size discrepancies (3.3%). Fixed appliances were used in 72.1% of cases. Mandibular anterior teeth were the most frequently treated (67.2%), followed by maxillary anterior (49.2%), mandibular posterior (37.5%), and maxillary posterior teeth (29.5%), with an average of 0.3 mm reduction per surface. No significant differences were observed between IPR and non-IPR groups regarding enamel and periodontium. Post-orthodontic arch dimensions remained stable, with minimal mandibular anterior relapse.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>IPR appears to be a feasible adjunct for managing mild to moderate crowding in young patients. Further long-term studies are recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":520615,"journal":{"name":"European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical outcomes of interproximal enamel reduction in orthodontic treatment of children and adolescents: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"M Khoury-Absawi, F Nasrallah, S Srouji, S Einy\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40368-025-01081-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the clinical outcomes of interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) in the permanent dentition amongst children and adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment, focusing on enamel integrity, periodontal health and dimensional changes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted using Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and manual research to identify publications between 1970 and October 2024 reporting on IPR outcomes in patients aged 8-17 years. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria: two cohort studies, one case-control study, and seven case reports. Most assessed immediately post-treatment, and few reported follow-up ranging from 3 to 15 years (mean: 5.71 years; median: 3.67 years). Clinical parameters such as enamel integrity, caries incidence, and periodontal status were used as proxies for safety. Data on IPR indications, treatment techniques, and clinical outcomes were analysed. Risk of bias was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa and Murad tool.</p><p><strong>Prospero id: </strong>CRD420251007607.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 10 articles analysed included 61 participants (mean age: 13.4 ± 1.71 years). Primary IPR indications were dental crowding (57.4%), followed by tooth reshaping (42.6%) and tooth-size-arch-size discrepancies (3.3%). Fixed appliances were used in 72.1% of cases. Mandibular anterior teeth were the most frequently treated (67.2%), followed by maxillary anterior (49.2%), mandibular posterior (37.5%), and maxillary posterior teeth (29.5%), with an average of 0.3 mm reduction per surface. No significant differences were observed between IPR and non-IPR groups regarding enamel and periodontium. Post-orthodontic arch dimensions remained stable, with minimal mandibular anterior relapse.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>IPR appears to be a feasible adjunct for managing mild to moderate crowding in young patients. Further long-term studies are recommended.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520615,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-025-01081-y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-025-01081-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:评价儿童和青少年正畸治疗中恒牙列近端间牙釉质复位(IPR)的临床效果,重点关注牙釉质完整性、牙周健康和尺寸变化。方法:使用Embase、Medline、Web of Science和手工研究进行系统评价,以确定1970年至2024年10月期间8-17岁患者IPR结果的报告。10项研究符合纳入标准:2项队列研究,1项病例对照研究和7例病例报告。大多数在治疗后立即评估,少数报告随访时间为3至15年(平均:5.71年;中位数:3.67岁)。临床参数如牙釉质完整性、龋齿发生率和牙周状态作为安全性的替代指标。分析了IPR适应症、治疗技术和临床结果的数据。使用Newcastle-Ottawa和Murad工具评估偏倚风险。普洛斯彼罗id: CRD420251007607。结果:10篇文献纳入61例受试者,平均年龄13.4±1.71岁。IPR的主要适应症为牙齿拥挤(57.4%),其次是牙齿整形(42.6%)和牙弓尺寸差异(3.3%)。72.1%的病例使用固定器具。治疗最多的是下颌前牙(67.2%),其次是上颌前牙(49.2%)、下颌后牙(37.5%)和上颌后牙(29.5%),平均每表面减少0.3 mm。IPR组与非IPR组在牙釉质和牙周组织方面无显著差异。正畸后弓尺寸保持稳定,下颌前侧复发最小。结论:IPR似乎是一个可行的辅助管理轻至中度拥挤的年轻患者。建议进一步进行长期研究。
Clinical outcomes of interproximal enamel reduction in orthodontic treatment of children and adolescents: a systematic review.
Purpose: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) in the permanent dentition amongst children and adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment, focusing on enamel integrity, periodontal health and dimensional changes.
Methods: A systematic review was conducted using Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and manual research to identify publications between 1970 and October 2024 reporting on IPR outcomes in patients aged 8-17 years. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria: two cohort studies, one case-control study, and seven case reports. Most assessed immediately post-treatment, and few reported follow-up ranging from 3 to 15 years (mean: 5.71 years; median: 3.67 years). Clinical parameters such as enamel integrity, caries incidence, and periodontal status were used as proxies for safety. Data on IPR indications, treatment techniques, and clinical outcomes were analysed. Risk of bias was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa and Murad tool.
Prospero id: CRD420251007607.
Results: The 10 articles analysed included 61 participants (mean age: 13.4 ± 1.71 years). Primary IPR indications were dental crowding (57.4%), followed by tooth reshaping (42.6%) and tooth-size-arch-size discrepancies (3.3%). Fixed appliances were used in 72.1% of cases. Mandibular anterior teeth were the most frequently treated (67.2%), followed by maxillary anterior (49.2%), mandibular posterior (37.5%), and maxillary posterior teeth (29.5%), with an average of 0.3 mm reduction per surface. No significant differences were observed between IPR and non-IPR groups regarding enamel and periodontium. Post-orthodontic arch dimensions remained stable, with minimal mandibular anterior relapse.
Conclusion: IPR appears to be a feasible adjunct for managing mild to moderate crowding in young patients. Further long-term studies are recommended.