Spyridon N Papageorgiou1, Ioannis Konstantinidis2, Konstantina Papadopoulou3, Andreas Jäger3, Christoph Bourauel4. 1. *Departments of Oral Technology and**Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Bonn, Germany, snpapage@gmail.com. 2. ***Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, USA. 3. **Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Bonn, Germany. 4. *Departments of Oral Technology and.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fixed-appliance treatment is a major part of orthodontic treatment, but clinical evidence remains scarce. OBJECTIVES: Objective of this systematic review was to investigate how the therapeutic effects and side-effects of brackets used during the fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment are affected by their characteristics. SEARCH METHODS AND SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched MEDLINE and 18 other databases through April 2012 without restrictions for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials investigating any bracket characteristic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: After duplicate selection and extraction procedures, risk of bias was assessed also in duplicate according to Cochrane guidelines and quality of evidence according to the Grades of Recommendation. Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Random-effects meta-analyses, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses were performed with the corresponding 95 per cent confidence intervals (CI) and 95 per cent prediction intervals (PI). RESULTS: We included 25 trials on 1321 patients, with most comparing self-ligated (SL) and conventional brackets. Based on the meta-analyses, the duration of orthodontic treatment was on average 2.01 months longer among patients with SL brackets (95 per cent CI: 0.45 to 3.57). The 95 per cent PIs for a future trial indicated that the difference could be considerable (-1.46 to 5.47 months). Treatment characteristics, outcomes, and side-effects were clinically similar between SL and conventional brackets. For most bracket characteristics, evidence is insufficient. Some meta-analyses included trials with high risk of bias, but sensitivity analyses indicated robustness. CONCLUSIONS: Based on existing evidence, no clinical recommendation can be made regarding the bracket material or different ligation modules. For SL brackets, no conclusive benefits could be proven, while their use was associated with longer treatment durations.
BACKGROUND: Fixed-appliance treatment is a major part of orthodontic treatment, but clinical evidence remains scarce. OBJECTIVES: Objective of this systematic review was to investigate how the therapeutic effects and side-effects of brackets used during the fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment are affected by their characteristics. SEARCH METHODS AND SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched MEDLINE and 18 other databases through April 2012 without restrictions for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials investigating any bracket characteristic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: After duplicate selection and extraction procedures, risk of bias was assessed also in duplicate according to Cochrane guidelines and quality of evidence according to the Grades of Recommendation. Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Random-effects meta-analyses, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses were performed with the corresponding 95 per cent confidence intervals (CI) and 95 per cent prediction intervals (PI). RESULTS: We included 25 trials on 1321 patients, with most comparing self-ligated (SL) and conventional brackets. Based on the meta-analyses, the duration of orthodontic treatment was on average 2.01 months longer among patients with SL brackets (95 per cent CI: 0.45 to 3.57). The 95 per cent PIs for a future trial indicated that the difference could be considerable (-1.46 to 5.47 months). Treatment characteristics, outcomes, and side-effects were clinically similar between SL and conventional brackets. For most bracket characteristics, evidence is insufficient. Some meta-analyses included trials with high risk of bias, but sensitivity analyses indicated robustness. CONCLUSIONS: Based on existing evidence, no clinical recommendation can be made regarding the bracket material or different ligation modules. For SL brackets, no conclusive benefits could be proven, while their use was associated with longer treatment durations.
Authors: Timothy Shaughnessy; Alpdogan Kantarci; Chung How Kau; Darya Skrenes; Sanjar Skrenes; Dennis Ma Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2016-01-13 Impact factor: 2.757