Cargando…

Clinical effectiveness of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices for skeletal Class III malocclusion: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the clinical effects of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices by using a network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched seven databases for randomized and controlled clinical trials that compared bone-anchored maxillary protraction with t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Jiangwei, Yang, Yingying, Wang, Yingxue, Zhang, Lu, Ji, Wei, Hong, Zheng, Zhang, Linkun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Association of Orthodontists 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9512627/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35844098
http://dx.doi.org/10.4041/kjod21.264
_version_ 1784797872828448768
author Wang, Jiangwei
Yang, Yingying
Wang, Yingxue
Zhang, Lu
Ji, Wei
Hong, Zheng
Zhang, Linkun
author_facet Wang, Jiangwei
Yang, Yingying
Wang, Yingxue
Zhang, Lu
Ji, Wei
Hong, Zheng
Zhang, Linkun
author_sort Wang, Jiangwei
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the clinical effects of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices by using a network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched seven databases for randomized and controlled clinical trials that compared bone-anchored maxillary protraction with tooth-anchored maxillary protraction interventions or untreated groups up to May 2021. After literature selection, data extraction, and quality assessment, we calculated the mean differences, 95% confidence intervals, and surface under the cumulative ranking scores of eleven indicators. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software with the GeMTC package based on the Bayesian framework. RESULTS: Six interventions and 667 patients were involved in 18 studies. In comparison with the tooth-anchored groups, the bone-anchored groups showed significantly more increases in Sella-Nasion-Subspinale (°), Subspinale-Nasion-Supramentale(°) and significantly fewer increases in mandibular plane angle and the labial proclination angle of upper incisors. In comparison with the control group, Sella-Nasion-Supramentale(°) decreased without any statistical significance in all treated groups. IMPA (angle of lower incisors and mandibular plane) decreased in groups with facemasks and increased in other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Bone-anchored maxillary protraction can promote greater maxillary forward movement and correct the Class III intermaxillary relationship better, in addition to showing less clockwise rotation of mandible and labial proclination of upper incisors. However, strengthening anchorage could not inhibit mandibular growth better and the lingual inclination of lower incisors caused by the treatment is related to the use of a facemask.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9512627
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Korean Association of Orthodontists
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95126272022-10-04 Clinical effectiveness of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices for skeletal Class III malocclusion: Systematic review and network meta-analysis Wang, Jiangwei Yang, Yingying Wang, Yingxue Zhang, Lu Ji, Wei Hong, Zheng Zhang, Linkun Korean J Orthod Original Article OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the clinical effects of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices by using a network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched seven databases for randomized and controlled clinical trials that compared bone-anchored maxillary protraction with tooth-anchored maxillary protraction interventions or untreated groups up to May 2021. After literature selection, data extraction, and quality assessment, we calculated the mean differences, 95% confidence intervals, and surface under the cumulative ranking scores of eleven indicators. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software with the GeMTC package based on the Bayesian framework. RESULTS: Six interventions and 667 patients were involved in 18 studies. In comparison with the tooth-anchored groups, the bone-anchored groups showed significantly more increases in Sella-Nasion-Subspinale (°), Subspinale-Nasion-Supramentale(°) and significantly fewer increases in mandibular plane angle and the labial proclination angle of upper incisors. In comparison with the control group, Sella-Nasion-Supramentale(°) decreased without any statistical significance in all treated groups. IMPA (angle of lower incisors and mandibular plane) decreased in groups with facemasks and increased in other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Bone-anchored maxillary protraction can promote greater maxillary forward movement and correct the Class III intermaxillary relationship better, in addition to showing less clockwise rotation of mandible and labial proclination of upper incisors. However, strengthening anchorage could not inhibit mandibular growth better and the lingual inclination of lower incisors caused by the treatment is related to the use of a facemask. Korean Association of Orthodontists 2022-09-25 2022-09-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9512627/ /pubmed/35844098 http://dx.doi.org/10.4041/kjod21.264 Text en © 2022 The Korean Association of Orthodontists. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Wang, Jiangwei
Yang, Yingying
Wang, Yingxue
Zhang, Lu
Ji, Wei
Hong, Zheng
Zhang, Linkun
Clinical effectiveness of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices for skeletal Class III malocclusion: Systematic review and network meta-analysis
title Clinical effectiveness of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices for skeletal Class III malocclusion: Systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full Clinical effectiveness of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices for skeletal Class III malocclusion: Systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_fullStr Clinical effectiveness of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices for skeletal Class III malocclusion: Systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Clinical effectiveness of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices for skeletal Class III malocclusion: Systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_short Clinical effectiveness of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices for skeletal Class III malocclusion: Systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_sort clinical effectiveness of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices for skeletal class iii malocclusion: systematic review and network meta-analysis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9512627/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35844098
http://dx.doi.org/10.4041/kjod21.264
work_keys_str_mv AT wangjiangwei clinicaleffectivenessofdifferenttypesofboneanchoredmaxillaryprotractiondevicesforskeletalclassiiimalocclusionsystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT yangyingying clinicaleffectivenessofdifferenttypesofboneanchoredmaxillaryprotractiondevicesforskeletalclassiiimalocclusionsystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT wangyingxue clinicaleffectivenessofdifferenttypesofboneanchoredmaxillaryprotractiondevicesforskeletalclassiiimalocclusionsystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT zhanglu clinicaleffectivenessofdifferenttypesofboneanchoredmaxillaryprotractiondevicesforskeletalclassiiimalocclusionsystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT jiwei clinicaleffectivenessofdifferenttypesofboneanchoredmaxillaryprotractiondevicesforskeletalclassiiimalocclusionsystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT hongzheng clinicaleffectivenessofdifferenttypesofboneanchoredmaxillaryprotractiondevicesforskeletalclassiiimalocclusionsystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT zhanglinkun clinicaleffectivenessofdifferenttypesofboneanchoredmaxillaryprotractiondevicesforskeletalclassiiimalocclusionsystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis