Xianrui Yang1, Yiruo He1, Tian Chen1, Mengyuan Zhao1, Yinqiu Yan1, Hongzhe Wang1, Ding Bai2. 1. Department of Orthodontics, West China School of Stomatology, Sichuan University, 3rd Section of Renmin South Road, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. 2. Department of Orthodontics, West China School of Stomatology, Sichuan University, 3rd Section of Renmin South Road, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. baiding@scu.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In orthodontic treatment, the effects of differences in the design between active and passive self-ligating bracket (ASLB and PSLB, respectively) are usually neglected. This study investigated differences in effectiveness and efficiency between ASLBs and PSLBs. METHODS: To identify randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing ASLB with PSLB, the electronic databases Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Chinese Medical Journal Database were searched without language or time limits. Relevant available dental journals and reference lists from included studies were manually searched for applicable reports. Meta-analyses were conducted with the Review Manager program. Two independent reviewers performed all search processes; disagreements were discussed with a third reviewer. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the systematic review, of which six were included in the meta-analysis due to the data consistency. Three had a low risk of bias, four had an unclear risk of bias, and one had a high risk of bias. With regard to alignment efficiency, meta-analysis favors ASLB [mean difference (MD) -10.24 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.68 to -2.80]. However, the same analysis does not favor either design in terms of width change due to treatment for intercanine (MD -0.49 mm, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.13 mm) interfirst premolar (MD -0.07 mm, 95% CI -0.69, 0.56 mm) intersecond premolar (MD -0.58 mm, 95% CI -1.25 to 0.08 mm) and intermolar (MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.82 to 1.02 mm) width. CONCLUSIONS: Based on current clinical evidence from RCTs, ASLB appears to be more efficient for alignment, while neither design shows an advantage for width change. Further research is needed to confirm present results.
PURPOSE: In orthodontic treatment, the effects of differences in the design between active and passive self-ligating bracket (ASLB and PSLB, respectively) are usually neglected. This study investigated differences in effectiveness and efficiency between ASLBs and PSLBs. METHODS: To identify randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing ASLB with PSLB, the electronic databases Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Chinese Medical Journal Database were searched without language or time limits. Relevant available dental journals and reference lists from included studies were manually searched for applicable reports. Meta-analyses were conducted with the Review Manager program. Two independent reviewers performed all search processes; disagreements were discussed with a third reviewer. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the systematic review, of which six were included in the meta-analysis due to the data consistency. Three had a low risk of bias, four had an unclear risk of bias, and one had a high risk of bias. With regard to alignment efficiency, meta-analysis favors ASLB [mean difference (MD) -10.24 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.68 to -2.80]. However, the same analysis does not favor either design in terms of width change due to treatment for intercanine (MD -0.49 mm, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.13 mm) interfirst premolar (MD -0.07 mm, 95% CI -0.69, 0.56 mm) intersecond premolar (MD -0.58 mm, 95% CI -1.25 to 0.08 mm) and intermolar (MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.82 to 1.02 mm) width. CONCLUSIONS: Based on current clinical evidence from RCTs, ASLB appears to be more efficient for alignment, while neither design shows an advantage for width change. Further research is needed to confirm present results.
Authors: Goldie Songra; Matthew Clover; Nikki E Atack; Paul Ewings; Martyn Sherriff; Jonathan R Sandy; Anthony J Ireland Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 2.650