Canine retraction and anchorage loss self-ligating versus conventional brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Oral Health

Yu Zhou¹  Kui Huang¹  Xiaofeng Chen¹  Liu Tian²  Abdul Azeem Amin ul Haq³  Qiaozhen Zhou⁴ 

[1] Department of Orthodontics, Hospital of Stomatology, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 113 West College Road, wenzhou, 325000, China;Department of Stomatology, Ningbo NO.2 Hospital, Ningbo, PR China;International Education College, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China;Department of Prosthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China

关键词: Anchorage loss;    Systematic review;    Orthodontic treatment;    Self-ligating bracket;   

Others  :  1230873
DOI  :  10.1186/s12903-015-0127-2

 received in 2015-02-22, accepted in 2015-10-23,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The purpose of this systematic review is to identify and review the orthodontic literature with regards to assessing possible differences in canine retraction rate and the amount of antero-posterior anchorage (AP) loss during maxillary canine retraction, using conventional brackets (CBs) and self-ligating brackets (SLBs).

Methods

An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertake in September 2014 in the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Oral Health Group’s Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, Web of science. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles. Quality assessment of the included articles was performed. Two of the authors were responsible for study selection, validity assessment and data extraction.

Results

Six studies met the inclusion criteria, including 2 randomized controlled trials and 4 control clinical studies. One was assessed as being at low risk of bias. Five trials were assessed as being at moderate risk of bias. The meta-analysis from 6 eligible studies showed that no statistically significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in the rate of canine retraction and loss of antero-posterior anchorage of the molars.

Conclusion

There is some evidence from this review that both brackets showed the same rate of canine retraction and loss of antero-posterior anchorage of the molars. The results of the present systematic review should be viewed with caution due to the presence of uncontrolled interpreted factors in the included studies. Further well-designed and conducted randomized controlled trials are required, to facilitate comparisons of the results.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Zhou et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Chen SS, Greenlee GM, Kim JE, Smith CL, Huang GJ. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137:726.e1–e18.
• [2]Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Lee RT. Randomized clinical trial of orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137:738-742.
• [3]Mezomo M, de Lima ES, de Menezes LM, Weissheimer A, Allgayer S. Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthod. 2011; 81:292-297.
• [4]Oz AA, Arici N, Arici S. The clinical and laboratory effects of bracket type during canine distalization with sliding mechanics. Angle Orthod. 2012; 82:326-332.
• [5]Burrow SJ. Canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs conventional edgewise brackets. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80:438-445.
• [6]Taylor NG, Ison K. Frictional resistance between orthodontic brackets and archwires in the buccal segments. Angle Orthod. 1996; 66:215-222.
• [7]Machibya FM, Bao X, Zhao L, Hu M. Treatment time, outcome, and anchorage loss comparisons of self-ligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthod. 2013; 83:280-285.
• [8]de Almeida MR, Herrero F, Fattal A, Davoody AR, Nanda R, Uribe F. A comparative anchorage control study between conventional and self-ligating bracket systems using differential moments. Angle Orthod. 2013; 83:937-942.
• [9]Moninia AC, Juniorb LG, Martinsc RP, Vianna AP. Canine retraction and anchorage loss Self-ligating versus conventional brackets in a randomized split-mouth study. Angle Orthod. 2014; 84:846-852.
• [10]Fleminga PS, Johalb A. Self-Ligating Brackets in Orthodontics. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80:575-584.
• [11]Shrier I, Boivin JF, Steele RJ, Platt RW, Furlan A, Kakuma R et al.. Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles. Am J Epidemiol. 2007; 166:1203(R)C9.
• [12]Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, England/Hoboken, NJ; 2008.
• [13]Kamoen A, Dermaut L, Verbeeck R. The clinical significance of error measurement in the interpretation of treatment results. Eur J Orthod. 2001; 23:569-578.
• [14]Storey E, Smith R. Force in orthodontics and its relation to tooth movement. Aust Dent J. 1952; 56:11-18.
• [15]Ren Y, Maltha JC, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Optimum force magnitude for orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic literature review. Angle Orthod. 2003; 73:86-92.
• [16]Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res. 2001; 4:220-227.
• [17]Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Self-ligating vs conventional brackets in the treatment of mandibular crowding: a prospective clinical trial of treatment duration and dental effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132:208-215.
• [18]Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Effects of ligation type and method on the resistance to sliding of novel orthodontic brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and wet states. Angle Orthod. 2003; 73:418-430.