Acceso abierto

Mandibular effects of temporary anchorage devices in Class II patients treated with Forsus Fatigue Resistant Devices: A systematic review

Jie Xiang
Jie Xiang
, 
Yuanyuan Yin
Yuanyuan Yin
, 
Ziqi Gan
Ziqi Gan
, 
Sangbeom Shim
Sangbeom Shim
 y 
Lixing Zhao
Lixing Zhao
   | 13 jul 2021
Australasian Orthodontic Journal's Cover Image
Acerca de este artículo
Artículo anterior
Artículo siguiente
Cite
Article Category: research-article
Publicado en línea: 13 jul 2021
Páginas: 50 - 61
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2021-005
© 2021 Jie Xiang et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram of study inclusion.
PRISMA flow diagram of study inclusion.

Figure 2.

Risk of bias summary for RCTs.
Risk of bias summary for RCTs.

Search strategies for electronic database.

Step PubMed Embase, Scopus, WOS CENTRAL, SIGLE, ProQuest
1 Fatigue Resistant Device* OR FRD OR Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device* OR FRD OR Forsus Forsus
2 Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures [MESH] OR miniscrew OR miniplate OR anchor* OR mini-implant* OR implant* OR TAD OR skeletal anchor* Miniscrew OR miniplate OR anchor* OR mini-implant* OR implant* OR TAD OR skeletal anchor*
3 1 AND 2 1 AND 2

Risk of bias assessment for CCTs following Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Selection (maximum 4 stars) Comparability (maximum 2 stars) Outcome (maximum 3 stars) Total score (maximum 9 stars)
Turkkahraman et al., 2016 (27) 4 1 3 8
Gandedkar et al., 2019 (28) 3 1 2 6

General information about included studies.

Study ID Study design Patients characteristics Grouping Intervention protocol Sample loss Measurement modality Outcomes reported
Aslan et al., 2014 (23) RCT n=33, M15:F18Angle Class II (26 division 1, 7 division 2) E: n=16, M5:F11, age:13.68±1.09yC: n=17, M10:F7, age:14.64±1.56y E: FFRD+MiniscrewC: FFRD None Lateral Cephalogram T1: Before FFRD insertion (16*22 stainless-steel wires engaged) T2: After Class I molar relationship was achieved Skeletal, dento-alveolar, soft tissue
Elkordy et al., 2016 (25) RCT n=31, M0:F31Angle Class IIdivision 1 E: n=15, M0:F15, age:13.07±1.41yC: n=16, M0:F16, age:13.45±1.12y E: FFRD+Mini-implantC: FFRD None CBCT T1: Before FFRD insertion (19*25 stainless-steel wires engaged) T2: After an edge-to-edge incisor relationship was achieved Skeletal, dento-alveolar
Turkkahraman et al., 2016 (27) CCT n=30, M20:F10Angle Class IIdivision 1 E: n=15, M13:F2, age:12.77±1.24yC: n=15, M7:F8, age:13.26±0.82y E: FFRD+MiniplateC: FFRD None Lateral Cephalogram T1: Before FFRD insertion (16*22 stainless-steel wires engaged) T2: Class I molar relationship and overjet elimination achievement Skeletal, dento-alveolar, soft tissue
Eissa et al.,2017 (24) RCT n=30, M11:F19Angle Class IIdivision 1* E: n=15, M5:F10, age:12.53±1.12yC: n=15, M6:F9, age:12.76±1.00y* E: FFRD+MiniscrewC: FFRD 1 sample lost in the FFRD group Lateral Cephalogram T1: Before FFRD insertion (19*25 stainless-steel wires engaged) T2: Class I or overcorrected Class I canine and molar relationship achievement Skeletal, dento-alveolar, soft tissue
Elkordy et al.,2019 (26) RCT n=32, M0:F32 (allocated, 30 analysed)Angle Class IIdivision 1 E: n=16, M0:F16, age:12.5±0.9yC: n=16, M0:F16, age:12.1±0.9y E: FFRD+MiniplateC: FFRD Both groups have 1 sample lost CBCT T1: Before FFRD insertion (19*25 stainless-steel wire engaged) T2: After an edge-to-edge incisor relationship was achieved or 10 months Skeletal, dento-alveolar
Gandedkar et al.,2019 (28) CCT n=16, M0:F16Angle Class IIdivision 1 E: n=8, M0:F8, age: 12.96±0.38yC: n=8, M0:F8, age: 13.11±0.38y E: FFRD+MiniplateC: FFRD None CBCT T0: Pre-treatment T1: Class I molar relationship achievement (After removal of FFRD) T2: One-year post-treatment Skeletal, dento-alveola, TMJ

GRADE assessment for quality of available evidence.

Quality assessment Patients(n) Relative effect (95% CI) Quality
Studies Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other C* E*
Mandibular length
6 Not Serious Serious Not serious Not serious None 86 85 Not pooled ⨁⨁⨁◯Moderate
Mandibular rotation
6 Not Serious Serious Not serious Not serious None 86 85 Not pooled ⨁⨁⨁◯Moderate
Lower incisors inclination
6 Not Serious Serious Not serious Not serious None 86 85 Not pooled ⨁⨁⨁◯Moderate
Soft tissue position change
3 Serious Serious Not serious Serious** None 47 46 Not pooled ⨁◯◯◯Very low

Intervention details of included studies.

Study ID Brackets Bonding protocol TAD clinical protocol Pushrod insertion site Additional control
Aslan et al., 2014 (23) RothSlot size: 0.018-inch E: Both arches (0.018*0.018-inch vertical slot brackets were bonded on lower canines)C: Both arches Indirect anchorage One 1.5*8mm miniscrew(Spider, Fla) was inserted between lower canine and first premolar on each side; The miniscrew was connected to the vertical slot of lower canine by a 0.018*0.025 SS wire segment. E: Mandibular archwires distal to caninesC: Mandibular archwires distal to canines Not mentioned
Elkordy et al., 2016 (25) MBT (3M)Slot size: 0.022-inch E: Both archesC: Both arches Indirect anchorage One 1.6*10 mm mini-implant (3M Unitek) was inserted between lower canine and first premolar on each side; The mini-implant was connected to the labial surface of lower canine by a 0.019*0.025 SS wire segment. E: Mandibular archwires distal to caninesC: Mandibular archwires distal to canines TPA: Cemented to upper first molars
Turkkahraman et al., 2016 (27) RothSlot size: 0.018-inch E: Maxilla onlyC: Both arches Direct anchorageBiforous miniplate was fixed on the mandible with head perforating at the canine region E: The miniplate headsC: Mandibular archwires distal to canines Not mentioned
Eissa et al., 2017 (24) MBT (Ormco)Slot size: 0.022-inch E: Both arches (Damon 3MX brackets with 0.018*0.018-inch vertical slot were bonded on lower canines)C: Both arches Indirect anchorage One 1.6*10 mm miniscrew (MCT, Korea) was inserted between lower canine and first premolar on each side; The miniscrew was connected to the vertical slot of lower canine by a 0.016*0.016 SS wire segment. E: Mandibular archwires distal to caninesC: Mandibular archwires distal to canines TPA: Cemented to upper first molars
Elkordy et al., 2019 (26) MBT (3M)Slot size: 0.022-inch E: Maxilla onlyC: Both arches Direct anchorage Two Y shaped miniplate (Stryker, Germany) were fixed on the mandibular region between lower canines with head perforating at the canine region; E: The miniplate headsC: Mandibular archwires distal to canines TPA: Cemented to upper first molars
Gandedkar et al., 2019 (28) Not specific* Slot size: 0.022-inch E: Both archesC: Both arches Direct anchorage Two triangular miniplate (S.K. Surgical, India) were fixed in the anterior region of mandible with head perforating at the canine region** E: The miniplate headsC: Mandibular archwires distal to canines*** TPA: Cemented to upper first molars

Definition of cephalometric values.

Cephalometric value Definition
Mandibular skeletal measurement
Co-Gn The linear distance between Condylion point and Gnathion point
Ar-Pog The linear distance between Articulare point and Pogonion point
Go-Pog The linear distance between Gonion point and Pogonion point
MP/SN The angle formed between mandibular plane and line S-N
GoMe/FH The angle formed between line Go-Me and Frankfort plane
Lower incisors inclination
L1/MP The angle formed between the L1 long axis and the mandibular plane
L1/NB The angle formed between the L1 long axis and line N-B
L1/FP The angle formed between the L1 long axis and the frontal plane
Soft tissue position measurement
Lbinf-VRL The distance from lower lip to a self-defined vertical reference line
Li-E The distance from lower lip to E line
Li-S The distance from lower lip to S line
eISSN:
2207-7480
Idioma:
Inglés
Calendario de la edición:
Volume Open
Temas de la revista:
Medicine, Basic Medical Science, other
RSS Feed de revista