Prateek Shakti, Abhinav Singh, Abhishek Purohit, Nidhi Shah
{"title":"小型种植体与传统牙弓植入上颌门牙:系统回顾与荟萃分析。","authors":"Prateek Shakti, Abhinav Singh, Abhishek Purohit, Nidhi Shah","doi":"10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2022.21080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the maxillary incisor intrusion and change in overbite achieved by micro-implants compared to Connecticut intrusion arches among post-pubertal patients with deep bite. Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, and Google scholar were searched for studies falling under the inclusion criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) com- paring maxillary incisor intrusion among post-pubertal deep bite cases treated by mini-implants and Connecticut intrusion arches were to be included. Outcome data were extracted using guidelines published by the Cochrane Collaboration. A systematic review was conducted using Cochrane Program Review Manager, version 5. A random effects model was used to assess the mean difference in the amount of incisor intrusion and overbite correction achieved between the 2 methods. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Assessment of certainty of evidence was conducted using GRADE analysis. Six trials met the inclusion criteria. Mean differences for incisor intrusion -0.67 [95% CI, 0.97, 0.38] I2 = 31%; P < .00001) and overbite correction -0.51 [95% CI, 0.85, 0.16] I2 = 50%; P = .004) achieved with mini-implants were found to be significantly effective when compared to the Connecticut intrusion arch. Low to mod- erate heterogeneity was noted for incisor intrusion and change in overbite analysis respectively. High certainty of evidence was noted for higher association of mini-implants with incisor intrusion and overbite correction. Our meta-analysis suggests that mini-implants are superior to the Connecticut intrusion arch with respect to the amount of incisor intrusion and overbite correction. Further studies are still needed to confirm the superiority.</p>","PeriodicalId":37013,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics","volume":"35 2","pages":"150-156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9316784/pdf/tjo-35-2-150.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Maxillary Incisor Intrusion Using Mini-Implants and Conventional Intrusion Arch: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Prateek Shakti, Abhinav Singh, Abhishek Purohit, Nidhi Shah\",\"doi\":\"10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2022.21080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the maxillary incisor intrusion and change in overbite achieved by micro-implants compared to Connecticut intrusion arches among post-pubertal patients with deep bite. Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, and Google scholar were searched for studies falling under the inclusion criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) com- paring maxillary incisor intrusion among post-pubertal deep bite cases treated by mini-implants and Connecticut intrusion arches were to be included. Outcome data were extracted using guidelines published by the Cochrane Collaboration. A systematic review was conducted using Cochrane Program Review Manager, version 5. A random effects model was used to assess the mean difference in the amount of incisor intrusion and overbite correction achieved between the 2 methods. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Assessment of certainty of evidence was conducted using GRADE analysis. Six trials met the inclusion criteria. Mean differences for incisor intrusion -0.67 [95% CI, 0.97, 0.38] I2 = 31%; P < .00001) and overbite correction -0.51 [95% CI, 0.85, 0.16] I2 = 50%; P = .004) achieved with mini-implants were found to be significantly effective when compared to the Connecticut intrusion arch. Low to mod- erate heterogeneity was noted for incisor intrusion and change in overbite analysis respectively. High certainty of evidence was noted for higher association of mini-implants with incisor intrusion and overbite correction. Our meta-analysis suggests that mini-implants are superior to the Connecticut intrusion arch with respect to the amount of incisor intrusion and overbite correction. Further studies are still needed to confirm the superiority.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics\",\"volume\":\"35 2\",\"pages\":\"150-156\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9316784/pdf/tjo-35-2-150.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2022.21080\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2022.21080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Maxillary Incisor Intrusion Using Mini-Implants and Conventional Intrusion Arch: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the maxillary incisor intrusion and change in overbite achieved by micro-implants compared to Connecticut intrusion arches among post-pubertal patients with deep bite. Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, and Google scholar were searched for studies falling under the inclusion criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) com- paring maxillary incisor intrusion among post-pubertal deep bite cases treated by mini-implants and Connecticut intrusion arches were to be included. Outcome data were extracted using guidelines published by the Cochrane Collaboration. A systematic review was conducted using Cochrane Program Review Manager, version 5. A random effects model was used to assess the mean difference in the amount of incisor intrusion and overbite correction achieved between the 2 methods. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Assessment of certainty of evidence was conducted using GRADE analysis. Six trials met the inclusion criteria. Mean differences for incisor intrusion -0.67 [95% CI, 0.97, 0.38] I2 = 31%; P < .00001) and overbite correction -0.51 [95% CI, 0.85, 0.16] I2 = 50%; P = .004) achieved with mini-implants were found to be significantly effective when compared to the Connecticut intrusion arch. Low to mod- erate heterogeneity was noted for incisor intrusion and change in overbite analysis respectively. High certainty of evidence was noted for higher association of mini-implants with incisor intrusion and overbite correction. Our meta-analysis suggests that mini-implants are superior to the Connecticut intrusion arch with respect to the amount of incisor intrusion and overbite correction. Further studies are still needed to confirm the superiority.