BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficiency of vibratory devices in altering rate of orthodontic tooth movement. METHODS: A literature search up to January 31, 2020 was conducted in three electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Science Direct, to identify studies on vibratory devices reporting any alteration in tooth movement as a primary outcome. Only articles published in English language were included. A meta-analysis was done to compare the amount of tooth movement (in mm) in patients treated with vibratory devices compared to control groups, to quantify weighted treatment effects. RESULTS: A total of two split mouth studies, six parallel arm randomized control trials (RCT) one split mouth RCT, and three regular RCTs were assessed qualitatively. Quantitative assessment was done for 8 randomized trials using a forest plot (310 patients). Pooled data showed increase in the amount of tooth movement by 0.34 mm (95% CI:0.25,0.42). There was a statistically significant difference noted for this result at p < 0.00001. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests a moderate to high level of certainty in regard to included studies in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Vibratory devices when used in conjunction with fixed orthodontic appliances show significant increase in the rate of tooth movement. These devices can be used by clinicians to reduce treatment duration and patient discomfort. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42020169675.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficiency of vibratory devices in altering rate of orthodontic tooth movement. METHODS: A literature search up to January 31, 2020 was conducted in three electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Science Direct, to identify studies on vibratory devices reporting any alteration in tooth movement as a primary outcome. Only articles published in English language were included. A meta-analysis was done to compare the amount of tooth movement (in mm) in patients treated with vibratory devices compared to control groups, to quantify weighted treatment effects. RESULTS: A total of two split mouth studies, six parallel arm randomized control trials (RCT) one split mouth RCT, and three regular RCTs were assessed qualitatively. Quantitative assessment was done for 8 randomized trials using a forest plot (310 patients). Pooled data showed increase in the amount of tooth movement by 0.34 mm (95% CI:0.25,0.42). There was a statistically significant difference noted for this result at p < 0.00001. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests a moderate to high level of certainty in regard to included studies in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Vibratory devices when used in conjunction with fixed orthodontic appliances show significant increase in the rate of tooth movement. These devices can be used by clinicians to reduce treatment duration and patient discomfort. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42020169675.
Authors: Andrew T DiBiase; Neil R Woodhouse; Spyridon N Papageorgiou; Nicola Johnson; Carmel Slipper; James Grant; Maryam Alsaleh; Yousef Khaja; Martyn T Cobourne Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.650