Comparison of anchorage capacity between implant and headgear during anterior segment retraction: a systematic review
Li, F., Hu, H.K., Chen, J.W., Liu, Z.P., Li, G.F., He, S.S., Zou, S.J., and Ye, Q.S. (2011) Comparison of anchorage capacity between implant and headgear during anterior segment retraction: a systematic review. Angle Orthodontist, 81 (5). pp. 915-922.
|PDF (Published Version) - Repository staff only - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader|
View at Publisher Website: http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/101410-603.1
Objective: To compare the anchorage effects of the implants and the headgear for patients with anterior teeth retraction in terms of incisor retraction, anchorage loss, inclination of maxillary incisors, positional change of maxillary basal bone, and treatment duration.
Materials and Methods: An electronic search for relative randomized controlled trials (RCTs) prospective and retrospective controlled trials was done through the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Medline, and CNKI, regardless of language of study. Study selection, methodological quality assessment, and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was performed when possible; otherwise descriptive assessment was done.
Results: The search yielded 35 articles, of which eight met the inclusion criteria and were categorized into five groups according to types of intervention. For the midpalatal implant, the anchorage loss was much less than for the headgear group, with insignificant differences in terms of anterior teeth retraction, maxillary incisor inclination, positional change of basal bone, and treatment duration. For the mini-implant, greater anterior teeth retraction and less anchorage loss were demonstrated, with inconsistent results for the other measures. For the onplant, less anchorage loss was noted, with insignificant differences for the other measures.
Conclusions: The skeletal anchorage of the midpalatal implant, mini-implant, and onplant offer better alternatives to headgear, with less anchorage loss and more anterior teeth retraction. There were inconsistent results from the included studies in terms of maxillary incisor inclination, positional change of maxillary basal bone, and treatment duration. More qualified RCTs are required to provide clear recommendations.
|Item Type:||Article (Refereed Research - C1)|
|Keywords:||systematic review, implant, headgear, anchorage|
|FoR Codes:||11 MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES > 1105 Dentistry > 110506 Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics @ 100%|
|SEO Codes:||92 HEALTH > 9201 Clinical Health (Organs, Diseases and Abnormal Conditions) > 920113 Oro-Dental Disorders @ 100%|
|Deposited On:||28 Jun 2011 12:00|
|Last Modified:||18 Oct 2013 01:14|
Last 12 Months: 0
|Citation Counts with External Providers:|
Repository Staff Only: item control page