Hui Shi1, Hong-Shan Ge1, Lu-Yi Chen2, Zhi-Hua Li1. 1. Dept. of Orthodontics, Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Nanchang University, Jiangxi Key Laboratory of Stomatology and Biomedicine, Nanchang 330006, China. 2. Dept. of Oral Medicine, Shenzhen Stomatological Hospital, Shenzhen 518000, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of bone anchorage and maxillary facemask protraction devices in treating skeletal class Ⅲ malocclusion in adolescents. METHODS: Articles relating to the use of bone anchorage and maxillary facemask protraction devices for treating skeletal class Ⅲ malocclusion in adolescents were searched from the databases of Cochrane Library, PubMed, EmBase, CNKI, and Wanfang database. Several inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed for the article screening. The clinical data were extracted, and the quality of the selected articles was evaluated. A Meta-analysis of SNA, SNB, ANB, ANS-Me, Wits, and U1-PP change was performed by using RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: Seven studies (264 patients) were included in the Meta-analysis. Among these studies, three were randomized controlled trials, and four were non-randomized controlled trials. Compared with the maxillary facemask protraction device group, the bone ancho-rage device group had higher SNA changes and lower ANS-Me, Wits, and U1-PP changes (P<0.05). No significant differences were observed in the SNB and ANB changes between these two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the maxillary facemask protraction device, the bone anchorage device can increase the extent of protraction of the maxilla and has better controls for the labial inclination of the maxillary anterior teeth in treating skeletal class Ⅲ malocclusion among adolescents. However, additional high-quality randomized controlled trials must be performed to verify the results.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of bone anchorage and maxillary facemask protraction devices in treating skeletal class Ⅲ malocclusion in adolescents. METHODS: Articles relating to the use of bone anchorage and maxillary facemask protraction devices for treating skeletal class Ⅲ malocclusion in adolescents were searched from the databases of Cochrane Library, PubMed, EmBase, CNKI, and Wanfang database. Several inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed for the article screening. The clinical data were extracted, and the quality of the selected articles was evaluated. A Meta-analysis of SNA, SNB, ANB, ANS-Me, Wits, and U1-PP change was performed by using RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: Seven studies (264 patients) were included in the Meta-analysis. Among these studies, three were randomized controlled trials, and four were non-randomized controlled trials. Compared with the maxillary facemask protraction device group, the bone ancho-rage device group had higher SNA changes and lower ANS-Me, Wits, and U1-PP changes (P<0.05). No significant differences were observed in the SNB and ANB changes between these two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the maxillary facemask protraction device, the bone anchorage device can increase the extent of protraction of the maxilla and has better controls for the labial inclination of the maxillary anterior teeth in treating skeletal class Ⅲ malocclusion among adolescents. However, additional high-quality randomized controlled trials must be performed to verify the results.
Entities:
Keywords:
Meta-analysis; adolescents; bone anchorage; protraction; skeletal class Ⅲ malocclusion