Literature DB >> 32415333

Stepwise versus single-step mandibular advancement with functional appliance in treating class II patients : A meta-analysis.

Zhixing Chen1, Qun Chen1, Xuemin Fan1, Yun Li1, Shuixue Mo2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Difference in the functional orthopedic effect between stepwise mandibular advancement (SWA) and single-step mandibular advancement (SSA) in Angle class II patients remains unclarified.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the treatment effects of SWA and SSA on skeletal and dentoalveolar changes in class II patients.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies that compared differences in skeletal and dentoalveolar effects on class II patients between SWA and SSA were identified in PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science. The grey literature was also searched. The primary outcomes were the mandibular length, L1-MP, and (ANB). Secondary outcomes included Pog sagittal, SNB, overjet, and mandibular plane angle.
RESULTS: Seven studies, including three RCTs and four cohort studies, were retrieved. Meta-analyses revealed pooled mean differences (95% confidence interval) of 0.79 mm (0.45 to 1.12 mm) for Pog sagittal, 0.53° (0.19 to 0.87°) for SNB, -0.51° (-0.83 to -0.20°) for ANB, -0.17° (-0.72 to 0.39°) for the mandibular plane angle, -0.41 mm (-0.90 to 0.09 mm) for overjet, -1.87° (-3.23 to -0.52°) for L1-MP, and 1.03 mm (0.63 to 1.42 mm) for the mandibular length. Publication bias was not observed, except for Pog sagittal. The quality of evidence for each outcome was judged as low (mandibular length, SNB and overjet) and very low (Pog sagittal, ANB, L1-MP and mandibular plane angle).
CONCLUSIONS: Although the magnitude of differences in clinical practice was limited, SWA might be more appropriate because it produces a greater skeletal change and less dental compensation than SSA. As the level of current evidence is low, more high-quality RCTs are needed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Angle class II malocclusion; Mandible; Mandibular advancement; Orthodontic appliances; Retrognathism

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32415333     DOI: 10.1007/s00056-020-00229-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orofac Orthop        ISSN: 1434-5293            Impact factor:   1.938


  36 in total

Review 1.  What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians?

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; Gunn E Vist; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-05-03

Review 2.  The statistical basis of meta-analysis.

Authors:  J L Fleiss
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 3.021

3.  Neuromuscular and skeletal adaptations to altered function in the orofacial region.

Authors:  J A McNamara
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1973-12

4.  Tissue reactions in the temporomandibular joint resulting from anterior displacement of the mandible in the monkey.

Authors:  P W Stöckli; H G Willert
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1971-08

Review 5.  A comparison of the efficacy of fixed versus removable functional appliances in children with Class II malocclusion: A systematic review.

Authors:  Moaiyad Moussa Pacha; Padhraig S Fleming; Ama Johal
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Incremental versus maximum bite advancement during twin-block therapy: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Phil Banks; Jean Wright; Kevin O'Brien
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.650

7.  Neovascularization and bone formation in the condyle during stepwise mandibular advancement.

Authors:  F Y C Leung; A B M Rabie; U Hägg
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  The effectiveness of the Herbst appliance for patients with Class II malocclusion: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xin Yang; Yafen Zhu; Hu Long; Yang Zhou; Fan Jian; Niansong Ye; Meiya Gao; Wenli Lai
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2015-08-25       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Long-term treatment effects of the FR-2 appliance: a prospective evalution 7 years post-treatment.

Authors:  Fernanda Angelieri; Lorenzo Franchi; Lucia H S Cevidanes; Marco A Scanavini; James A McNamara
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.

Authors:  Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Barnaby C Reeves; Jelena Savović; Nancy D Berkman; Meera Viswanathan; David Henry; Douglas G Altman; Mohammed T Ansari; Isabelle Boutron; James R Carpenter; An-Wen Chan; Rachel Churchill; Jonathan J Deeks; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jamie Kirkham; Peter Jüni; Yoon K Loke; Theresa D Pigott; Craig R Ramsay; Deborah Regidor; Hannah R Rothstein; Lakhbir Sandhu; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Holger J Schünemann; Beverly Shea; Ian Shrier; Peter Tugwell; Lucy Turner; Jeffrey C Valentine; Hugh Waddington; Elizabeth Waters; George A Wells; Penny F Whiting; Julian Pt Higgins
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-10-12
View more
  1 in total

1.  Comparison of skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of two different mandibular advancement methods: conventional technique vs aesthetic approach.

Authors:  Hasan Camcı; Farhad Salmanpour
Journal:  Eur Oral Res       Date:  2022-05-05
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.