Literature DB >> 27980339

No confidence that success rates of self-drilling and self-tapping insertion techniques of orthodontic mini-implants are similar.

Reint Meursinge Reynders1, Giorgio Cacciatore2.   

Abstract

Data sourcesMedline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and SIGLE.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials(RCTs), clinical controlled trials (CCTs) and cohort studies that assessed the success/failure rates of self-drilling and self-tapping mini-screws for orthodontic anchorage were considered.Data extraction and synthesisData was abstracted and assessed for quality by two reviewers independently. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the methodological quality. Meta-analyses with subgroup analysis of different study designs, follow-up periods, participant age and immediate loading or delayed loading were conducted.ResultsThree CCTs and three cohort studies were included. These were assessed to be of high quality. Meta-analysis (six studies) showed no difference in success rates between the two types of screws; odds ratio (OR) = 0.90 (95%CI; 0.52-1.53). Meta-analysis (two studies) found no difference in the rate of root contact between the two systems; OR = 0.96 (95% CI; 0.53-1.71).ConclusionsCurrently available clinical evidence suggests that the success rates of self-tapping and self-drilling miniscrews are similar. Determination of the position and direction of placement should be more precise when self-drilling miniscrews are used in sites with narrow root proximity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27980339     DOI: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401203

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evid Based Dent        ISSN: 1462-0049


  12 in total

Review 1.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins; Simon G Thompson; Jonathan J Deeks; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-06

2.  AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Beverley J Shea; Candyce Hamel; George A Wells; Lex M Bouter; Elizabeth Kristjansson; Jeremy Grimshaw; David A Henry; Maarten Boers
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-02-20       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Jamie J Kirkham; Kerry M Dwan; Douglas G Altman; Carrol Gamble; Susanna Dodd; Rebecca Smyth; Paula R Williamson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-02-15

4.  Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs.

Authors:  Lisa Hartling; Michele P Hamm; Andrea Milne; Ben Vandermeer; P Lina Santaguida; Mohammed Ansari; Alexander Tsertsvadze; Susanne Hempel; Paul Shekelle; Donna M Dryden
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2012-09-13       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 5.  Comparison of the success rate between self-drilling and self-tapping miniscrews: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jianru Yi; Mengke Ge; Meile Li; Chunjie Li; Yu Li; Xiaobing Li; Zhihe Zhao
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 6.  Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography.

Authors:  Simon Sanderson; Iain D Tatt; Julian P T Higgins
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-04-30       Impact factor: 7.196

7.  Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Beverley J Shea; Jeremy M Grimshaw; George A Wells; Maarten Boers; Neil Andersson; Candyce Hamel; Ashley C Porter; Peter Tugwell; David Moher; Lex M Bouter
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2007-02-15       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed.

Authors:  Penny Whiting; Jelena Savović; Julian P T Higgins; Deborah M Caldwell; Barnaby C Reeves; Beverley Shea; Philippa Davies; Jos Kleijnen; Rachel Churchill
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 6.437

9.  Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers' to authors' assessments.

Authors:  Carson Ka-Lok Lo; Dominik Mertz; Mark Loeb
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 10.  Insertion torque recordings for the diagnosis of contact between orthodontic mini-implants and dental roots: a systematic review.

Authors:  Reint Meursinge Reynders; Luisa Ladu; Laura Ronchi; Nicola Di Girolamo; Jan de Lange; Nia Roberts; Annette Plüddemann
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2016-03-31
View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Revisiting the Complications of Orthodontic Miniscrew.

Authors:  Van Mai Truong; Soyeon Kim; Jaeheon Kim; Joo Won Lee; Young-Seok Park
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 3.246

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.