Xianrui Yang1, Chaoran Xue1, Yiruo He1, Mengyuan Zhao1, Mengqi Luo1, Peiqi Wang1, Ding Bai2. 1. State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 2. Department Chair, Department of Orthodontics, State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, 3rd Section of Renmin South Road, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. baiding@scu.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Self-ligating brackets (SLBs) were compared to conventional brackets (CBs) regarding their effectiveness on transversal changes and space closure, as well as the efficiency of alignment and treatment time. METHODS: All previously published randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) dealing with SLBs and CBs were searched via electronic databases, e.g., MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. In addition, relevant journals were searched manually. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers and assessment of the risk of bias was executed using Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. Meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager (version 5.3). RESULTS: A total of 976 patients in 17 RCTs were included in the study, of which 11 could be produced quantitatively and 2 showed a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses were found to favor CB for mandibular intercanine width expansion, while passive SLBs were more effective in posterior expansion. Moreover, CBs had an apparent advantage during short treatment periods. However, SLBs and CBs did not differ in closing spaces. CONCLUSIONS: Based on current clinical evidence obtained from RCTs, SLBs do not show clinical superiority compared to CBs in expanding transversal dimensions, space closure, or orthodontic efficiency. Further high-level studies involving randomized, controlled, clinical trials are warranted to confirm these results.
OBJECTIVE: Self-ligating brackets (SLBs) were compared to conventional brackets (CBs) regarding their effectiveness on transversal changes and space closure, as well as the efficiency of alignment and treatment time. METHODS: All previously published randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) dealing with SLBs and CBs were searched via electronic databases, e.g., MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. In addition, relevant journals were searched manually. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers and assessment of the risk of bias was executed using Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. Meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager (version 5.3). RESULTS: A total of 976 patients in 17 RCTs were included in the study, of which 11 could be produced quantitatively and 2 showed a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses were found to favor CB for mandibular intercanine width expansion, while passive SLBs were more effective in posterior expansion. Moreover, CBs had an apparent advantage during short treatment periods. However, SLBs and CBs did not differ in closing spaces. CONCLUSIONS: Based on current clinical evidence obtained from RCTs, SLBs do not show clinical superiority compared to CBs in expanding transversal dimensions, space closure, or orthodontic efficiency. Further high-level studies involving randomized, controlled, clinical trials are warranted to confirm these results.
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-26
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