Alessandro Ugolini1, Paola Agostino1, Armando Silvestrini-Biavati1, Jayne E Harrison2, Klaus Bsl Batista3. 1. Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Sciences, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy. 2. Orthodontic Department, Liverpool University Dental Hospital, Liverpool, UK. 3. Department of Preventive and Public Dentistry, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A posterior crossbite occurs when the top back teeth bite inside the bottom back teeth. The prevalence of posterior crossbite is around 4% and 17% of children and adolescents in Europe and America, respectively. Several treatments have been recommended to correct this problem, which is related to such dental issues as tooth attrition, abnormal development of the jaws, joint problems, and imbalanced facial appearance. Treatments involve expanding the upper jaw with an orthodontic appliance, which can be fixed (e.g. quad-helix) or removable (e.g. expansion plate). This is the third update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different orthodontic treatments for posterior crossbites. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 8 April 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites in children and adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, independently and in duplicate, screened the results of the electronic searches, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. A third review author participated to resolve disagreements. We used risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to summarise dichotomous data (event), unless there were zero values in trial arms, in which case we used odds ratios (ORs). We used mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs to summarise continuous data. We performed meta-analyses using fixed-effect models. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 31 studies that randomised approximately 1410 participants. Eight studies were at low risk of bias, 15 were at high risk of bias, and eight were unclear. Intervention versus observation For children (age 7 to 11 years), quad-helix was beneficial for posterior crossbite correction compared to observation (OR 50.59, 95% CI 26.77 to 95.60; 3 studies, 149 participants; high-certainty evidence) and resulted in higher final inter-molar distances (MD 4.71 mm, 95% CI 4.31 to 5.10; 3 studies, 146 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For children, expansion plates were also beneficial for posterior crossbite correction compared to observation (OR 25.26, 95% CI 13.08 to 48.77; 3 studies, 148 participants; high-certainty evidence) and resulted in higher final inter-molar distances (MD 3.30 mm, 95% CI 2.88 to 3.73; 3 studies, 145 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In addition, expansion plates resulted in higher inter-canine distances (MD 2.59 mm, 95% CI 2.18 to 3.01; 3 studies, 145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The use of Hyrax is probably effective for correcting posterior crossbite compared to observation (OR 48.02, 95% CI 21.58 to 106.87; 93 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Two of the studies focused on adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) and found that Hyrax increased the inter-molar distance compared with observation (MD 5.80, 95% CI 5.15 to 6.45; 2 studies, 72 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Intervention A versus intervention B When comparing quad-helix with expansion plates in children, quad-helix was more effective for posterior crossbite correction (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.46; 3 studies, 151 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), final inter-molar distance (MD 1.48 mm, 95% CI 0.91 mm to 2.04 mm; 3 studies, 151 participants; high-certainty evidence), inter-canine distance (0.59 mm higher (95% CI 0.09 mm to 1.08 mm; 3 studies, 151 participants; low-certainty evidence) and length of treatment (MD -3.15 months, 95% CI -4.04 to -2.25; 3 studies, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between Hyrax and Haas for posterior crossbite correction (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.18; 3 studies, 83 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or inter-molar distance (MD -0.15 mm, 95% CI -0.86 mm to 0.56 mm; 2 studies of adolescents, 46 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between Hyrax and tooth-bone-borne expansion for crossbite correction (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.12; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 120 participants; low-certainty evidence) or inter-molar distance (MD -0.66 mm, 95% CI -1.36 mm to 0.04 mm; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 65 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between Hyrax with bone-borne expansion for posterior crossbite correction (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; I² = 0%; 2 studies of adolescents, 81 participants; low-certainty evidence) or inter-molar distance (MD -0.14 mm, 95% CI -0.85 mm to 0.57 mm; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 81 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For children in the early mixed dentition stage (age 7 to 11 years old), quad-helix and expansion plates are more beneficial than no treatment for correcting posterior crossbites. Expansion plates also increase the inter-canine distance. Quad-helix is more effective than expansion plates for correcting posterior crossbite and increasing inter-molar distance. Treatment duration is shorter with quad-helix than expansion plates. For adolescents in permanent dentition (age 12 to 16 years old), Hyrax and Haas are similar for posterior crossbite correction and increasing the inter-molar distance. The remaining evidence was insufficient to draw any robust conclusions for the efficacy of posterior crossbite correction.
BACKGROUND: A posterior crossbite occurs when the top back teeth bite inside the bottom back teeth. The prevalence of posterior crossbite is around 4% and 17% of children and adolescents in Europe and America, respectively. Several treatments have been recommended to correct this problem, which is related to such dental issues as tooth attrition, abnormal development of the jaws, joint problems, and imbalanced facial appearance. Treatments involve expanding the upper jaw with an orthodontic appliance, which can be fixed (e.g. quad-helix) or removable (e.g. expansion plate). This is the third update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different orthodontic treatments for posterior crossbites. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 8 April 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites in children and adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, independently and in duplicate, screened the results of the electronic searches, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. A third review author participated to resolve disagreements. We used risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to summarise dichotomous data (event), unless there were zero values in trial arms, in which case we used odds ratios (ORs). We used mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs to summarise continuous data. We performed meta-analyses using fixed-effect models. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 31 studies that randomised approximately 1410 participants. Eight studies were at low risk of bias, 15 were at high risk of bias, and eight were unclear. Intervention versus observation For children (age 7 to 11 years), quad-helix was beneficial for posterior crossbite correction compared to observation (OR 50.59, 95% CI 26.77 to 95.60; 3 studies, 149 participants; high-certainty evidence) and resulted in higher final inter-molar distances (MD 4.71 mm, 95% CI 4.31 to 5.10; 3 studies, 146 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For children, expansion plates were also beneficial for posterior crossbite correction compared to observation (OR 25.26, 95% CI 13.08 to 48.77; 3 studies, 148 participants; high-certainty evidence) and resulted in higher final inter-molar distances (MD 3.30 mm, 95% CI 2.88 to 3.73; 3 studies, 145 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In addition, expansion plates resulted in higher inter-canine distances (MD 2.59 mm, 95% CI 2.18 to 3.01; 3 studies, 145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The use of Hyrax is probably effective for correcting posterior crossbite compared to observation (OR 48.02, 95% CI 21.58 to 106.87; 93 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Two of the studies focused on adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) and found that Hyrax increased the inter-molar distance compared with observation (MD 5.80, 95% CI 5.15 to 6.45; 2 studies, 72 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Intervention A versus intervention B When comparing quad-helix with expansion plates in children, quad-helix was more effective for posterior crossbite correction (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.46; 3 studies, 151 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), final inter-molar distance (MD 1.48 mm, 95% CI 0.91 mm to 2.04 mm; 3 studies, 151 participants; high-certainty evidence), inter-canine distance (0.59 mm higher (95% CI 0.09 mm to 1.08 mm; 3 studies, 151 participants; low-certainty evidence) and length of treatment (MD -3.15 months, 95% CI -4.04 to -2.25; 3 studies, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between Hyrax and Haas for posterior crossbite correction (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.18; 3 studies, 83 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or inter-molar distance (MD -0.15 mm, 95% CI -0.86 mm to 0.56 mm; 2 studies of adolescents, 46 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between Hyrax and tooth-bone-borne expansion for crossbite correction (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.12; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 120 participants; low-certainty evidence) or inter-molar distance (MD -0.66 mm, 95% CI -1.36 mm to 0.04 mm; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 65 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between Hyrax with bone-borne expansion for posterior crossbite correction (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; I² = 0%; 2 studies of adolescents, 81 participants; low-certainty evidence) or inter-molar distance (MD -0.14 mm, 95% CI -0.85 mm to 0.57 mm; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 81 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For children in the early mixed dentition stage (age 7 to 11 years old), quad-helix and expansion plates are more beneficial than no treatment for correcting posterior crossbites. Expansion plates also increase the inter-canine distance. Quad-helix is more effective than expansion plates for correcting posterior crossbite and increasing inter-molar distance. Treatment duration is shorter with quad-helix than expansion plates. For adolescents in permanent dentition (age 12 to 16 years old), Hyrax and Haas are similar for posterior crossbite correction and increasing the inter-molar distance. The remaining evidence was insufficient to draw any robust conclusions for the efficacy of posterior crossbite correction.